What, as a GM or as a player, would you think of this twist?

[Geordnet]

Anyone who reads this thread has permission to use this in a game; in fact I would encourage it. The whole reason I posted it was because I doubt I'll ever be able to use it myself...


Some Background:
It's probably important to note first that this is intended to happen in a relatively low-magic setting. Common magic is everywhere but subtle, powerful magic-users are very rare but practical demigods, with little room in-between.

The point is that as far as the players are concerned, anyone who dies is expected to stay dead. There's no way they can just walk into a temple somewhere and get a raise; heck, there isn't even an accessible afterlife. Whatever system is in use would probably have PCs downed in combat be "merely" wounded, but the basic conventions about needing to recover the fallen would still apply.

Anyways, the PCs have a long-arching quest to find some epic MacGuffin. This quest has been at least foreshadowed for almost the entire game, but they've never been able to get any concrete data as to its whereabouts. In the meantime, the players have been doing other things -following unrelated (for now) plot hooks, seeing sights, slaying stuff, grabbing loot.

Eventually, inevitably, the party suffers a TPK. (Preferably a natural one, but contrived if need be not contrived. That was a terrible idea.) Whatever the foe that laid them low, the party has no reason to think it wouldn't finish them off, make a meal of them, 'dispose' of the loose end they represent, or whatever. In fact, they're explicitly told that "Death greets you".

For Death greets them indeed... The players receive a collective vision of a robed, skeletal figure; pale to the point where one cannot tell if there is substance to him or not. Death himself has come to tell the players where to find that they seek.

Their MacGuffin happens to be in the possession of his compatriot, War (long story). Death will do some exposition, but not too much; the gist of it is that War is overstepping his bounds by having it, but the other two horsemen will never abide Death taking it from him by force. So, he has decided to inform mortals with concurrent goals of the situation.

The PCs then turn out to have been only mostly dead, having miraculously survived in a way that's clearly contrived even in-setting. Congratulations! They are now in alliance with Death himself. :smallamused:


Additional Info:
Fortunately for the players, Death is very patient, and is willing to give the PCs all the time they need to figure out how they're going to do what they need to do. If they ever get around do doing what they 'need' to do... He'll even be willing to pass them over again in the future!

However, this comes at a cost... Every time the PCs have another brush with Death, the longer they tarry in the task they were charged with, the more their life drains away... A good medium would be able to tell the PCs that they are slowly being turned into wraiths. Death is patient enough to wait for another group of mortals if need be, so he's willing to off this one if they won't get their act together. (Never mind. This curse was a terrible idea, which I should have known I'd regret. Note that Death is still patient enough to find another group if need be, but he isn't going to waste effort disposing of this one.)


This Death, by the way, isn't your stereotypical Grim Reaper. He's more the 'Death' as in "The Black Death", if you include the death by violence and civil unrest, exposure, and famine which followed in the wake of the Plague. He's got a scheming, "chessmaster" mentality, and his purpose is totally unrelated to any sort of afterlife.

Likewise, his three comrades also vary a bit from the normal "four horsemen" model. For starters, none of them have horses. (They don't get those 'til Armageddon.) Also, since "Pestilence" was folded back into "Death", their ranks are now (starting from the bottom) Death, Famine, War, and... Well, I'm not sure whether to call him "Tyranny", "Ego", "Pride", or "Conquest", but I hope you get the general idea.


Oh, and finally there's definitely more to things than meets the eye. Death certainly has an ulterior agenda, and certainly doesn't want the PCs discovering isn't going to offer the whole truth. But guess who knows the old adage "dead men tell no tales" better than most? Although, Death needn't hide Its goals either, because both the good and the bad endings require doing what Death wants. :smallwink:
Stuff which came up in discussion:
Death does not play favorites: the PCs aren't getting any "special treatment", good or bad. Death will appear and give information to others in positions of power, as suits Its purposes.

Death gives information and advice to those whom it wishes, irregardless of solicitation. It never threatens, bargains, deals, or requests: those informed act of their own free will -and Death expects this; nay, It is counting on it. Death merely gives mortals with the motives to do what It wishes the information to do so. And if they don't, It merely adjusts its plans accordingly.

Death is brutally honest, never lying, although it will occasionally omit portions of the truth. It has no true understanding of the motivations of mortals, only a surface-level "cause-effect" knowledge. (As one can probably figure out, people appear basically random to Death.)

Death cannot collect a mortal unless it is already close to It... Death almost always will simply wait for the mortal to die by natural causes, and will never attempt to end a life early simply to "collect" sooner. In the extreme cases in which Death must act, It can only only do so through intermediates (which can and in fact often can easily be fought off). This is very resource-intensive for Death, and has a high probability of failure, so It will only ever do so in extreme circumstances.

Death cannot return the dead to life, but It may "decline to collect" on a mortal which is about to die, and it simply won't die. It simply keeps on living, although there comes a point where the word "life" isn't quite accurate anymore. But neither is the line between "living" and "living dead" clear and unambiguous... Death can not "retroactively collect", it must wait for the next opportunity to do so. (Although, once one gets to the point where something's walking around which shouldn't be alive...)


Death has contacted the party in this case because It wants the PCs to succeed in their quest. It turns out that there are both good guys and bad guys on both sides of the fence for what the PCs want to do...

tl;dr
TPK turns into time for exposition when Death informs the PCs that the MacGuffin they seek is in the possession of War.

[Raineh Daze]

Sudden reversal of universal rules and contrived survival. Gaaaaaaaah. :smallfrown:

[Elderand]

Never let the rules get in the way fo a good story. I like it. But what if they didn't survive ? What if they all turned into necropolitan with a vague promise of coming back to life if they pull the job ?

[Geordnet]

Sudden reversal of universal rules and contrived survival. Gaaaaaaaah. :smallfrown:

Well, it's supposed to be pretty obvious that someone intervened in their favor, and broke the rules for them. So, in that sense it isn't really contrived, since it's explicitly not a coincidence... :smalltongue:

Also, in some ways the rules are bent more than broken, since the PCs simply "weren't dead in the first place". They still have to pay for it in the end, too; and the price might in fact be steeper than having just died would have been...




Never let the rules get in the way fo a good story. I like it. But what if they didn't survive ? What if they all turned into necropolitan with a vague promise of coming back to life if they pull the job ?

That's doable, I guess; but probably not in the rest of the setting. Undead here don't really work at all like undead in D&D; they're less "animated corpses" and more "vengeful demons" and "death incarnate". So, basically pure malevolence and evil given form.

Hm... I could do something like the Pirates of the Caribbean, though... :smallamused:

[Water_Bear]

I've never been a fan of "Deity forces you to go on a quest" as a plot-hook, although I am guilty of using something similar in my first game. It feels forced (because it is) and makes the players feel powerless (because they are), neither of which are great things to start your game with.

That said, I do like the general idea of the players slowly turning into wraiths as they hunt a God on behalf of Death; being hitmen for the Reaper is a pretty boss job. Although, I would personally divorce it of the "four horseman" baggage; that specific mythology can be fun to play with in a modern game, but in fantasy games polytheistic systems tend to gel better IMO.

[Stake A Vamp]

i like it as a dm, my players would kill me though, they have been indebted by one two many supernatural beings

[Geordnet]

I've never been a fan of "Deity forces you to go on a quest" as a plot-hook, although I am guilty of using something similar in my first game. It feels forced (because it is) and makes the players feel powerless (because they are), neither of which are great things to start your game with.
Actually, one of the themes I was going to explore with this is breaking free of Death's curse, and charting their own course. In fact, if they don't deviate from Death's plans... They're going to be very, very screwed. :smallamused:

Also, Death is very patient. He doesn't even have a plan for the PCs to follow, just a task that they must figure out how to do. This quest can and probably will sit on the back burner for a while, for the PCs to pick up when they're finally too nervous to let it sit any longer... Maybe even panic a bit when they don't know where to start. :smallbiggrin:



Although, I would personally divorce it of the "four horseman" baggage; that specific mythology can be fun to play with in a modern game, but in fantasy games polytheistic systems tend to gel better IMO.
Actually, with the rest of the setting I'm specifically going monotheistic (or at least one dominant henotheism) to break with fantasy norms. It's 'divorced' even further since I'm going much closer to the original source than the usual "four horsemen" seen in media.




i like it as a dm, my players would kill me though, they have been indebted by one two many supernatural beings
Not so much indebted so much as Shanghaied, really. Death sets his own schedule... :smallwink:

[Stake A Vamp]

Actually, one of the themes I was going to explore with this is breaking free of Death's curse, and charting their own course. In fact, if they don't deviate from Death's plans... They're going to be very, very screwed. :smallamused:


how VERY screwed, and what is his endgame. (speaking as a dm, i would recommend dropping hints as to his endgame as players are often don't think ahead, {one time my players simply collapsed the entrance to a burrowing monsters cave and called it a day})

[Sutremaine]

Sounds interesting by itself, but I don't see why the players need to die and come back again. Once you've got that quest-giving hurdle out of the way, what's so important about them having died and come back in the service of this particular powerful individual?

What might be interesting is sneaking the death in. Split the party up as part of an apparently unrelated mission, and kill them one by one. Instead of informing them that they're dead, their meeting with (a corporeal-looking) Death is a vague, delirious, dream-quest sort of thing that may be taken as a near-death experience instead of a, well, death experience.

Now their employer is following them around, appearing when nobody else is around or when other people are too busy to react. Or maybe there are a select few who see him, others who have died and been sent back, but don't really interact with the party or Death.

Eventually the players may work out the nature of their employer and his fellows, but that reveal doesn't really mean anything with just the scenario details given. It's very clever and all, setting up the campaign world so that there is an afterlife after all but either a one-way trip or not recognised for what it is, but what are you going to do with this place once you've introduced it? What can you do with it that you couldn't do with some distant country?

On preview I have been ninja'd by everyone but Raineh Daze. Oh well.

Why do you need to bring the afterlife into this plot?

[Geordnet]

how VERY screwed, and what is his endgame. (speaking as a dm, i would recommend dropping hints as to his endgame as players are often don't think ahead, {one time my players simply collapsed the entrance to a burrowing monsters cave and called it a day})
His endgame basically is just one of several threads that get tied together in the overarching theme of the entire campaign (and will be foreshadowed from the very first session). It's actually pretty clever, because even if the players discover all the details of his plan, they might want to do what he wants anyways, albeit for very different reasons. :smallamused:

*SPOILER* Details:
The MacGuffin in question is actually the key to the entire world, and putting it back where it belongs will trigger a literal Apocalypse, END-OF-THE-WORLD scenario. :smalleek:

But, the current world is pretty broken, and this Ragnarok will either end all the misery, or pave the way unto a brighter dawn. But it's the PCs who have their finger on the button, and do it's their call whether to end it all or to delay the inevitable. Which is fine, and totally up to them; this is basically a choice of endings. :smallsmile:


Oh, and War was keeping the MacGuffin because he would rather things remain as they are. Death wants the Apocalypse to come so that he can kill reality itself, and will start with the PCs if they haven't broken his curse by then. :smallbiggrin:

At which point, the players get to roll up new characters, and try to fix what their last ones did. :smallcool:


Sounds interesting by itself, but I don't see why the players need to die and come back again. Once you've got that quest-giving hurdle out of the way, what's so important about them having died and come back in the service of this particular powerful individual?
Um, because the dying is what gets the quest-giving hurdle out of the way. :smallconfused:



What might be interesting is sneaking the death in. Split the party up as part of an apparently unrelated mission, and kill them one by one. Instead of informing them that they're dead, their meeting with (a corporeal-looking) Death is a vague, delirious, dream-quest sort of thing that may be taken as a near-death experience instead of a, well, death experience.
Hm, very good idea, actually. Thanks. :smallbiggrin:




It's very clever and all, setting up the campaign world so that there is an afterlife after all but either a one-way trip or not recognised for what it is, but what are you going to do with this place once you've introduced it? What can you do with it that you couldn't do with some distant country?

Why do you need to bring the afterlife into this plot?
Um, actually I think you may be misunderstanding me. I didn't intend to suggest that there was any links to the afterlife in this, although it would certainly strongly suggest there was one.

The closest the PCs will ever get is a limbo or purgatory of sorts, where the four horsemen reside (and engage in miscellaneous games with each other). But it won't even be clear if it's actually that, or just some parallel plane, or some "dreamscape". It's certainly somewhere where one doesn't linger a second longer than he absolutely must, though.

Sharp contrast is the key here. The rest of the setting is supposed to be fairly realistic, cautiously optimistic even. But the land of Death is bleak and surreal. It's a place where the normal rules don't apply, and not somewhere anyone wants to go back to.

In short, I think it's cooler. :smalltongue:

[Sutremaine]

Um, actually I think you may be misunderstanding me.

Quite possibly...


Um, because the dying is what gets the quest-giving hurdle out of the way. :smallconfused:
This is the main thing I'm not getting. The whole idea of setting up a world where people don't come back from dying, and then stressing that the PCs do come back. It seems to me that you could de-emphasise that and let the contrasts created by that initial inspiration speak for themselves.

Or am I putting too much weight on the initial presentation of the idea?

[Geordnet]

This is the main thing I'm not getting. The whole idea of setting up a world where people don't come back from dying, and then stressing that the PCs do come back. It seems to me that you could de-emphasise that and let the contrasts created by that initial inspiration speak for themselves.

Or am I putting too much weight on the initial presentation of the idea?
Yeah, I think so.

I meant that it would be set up in a way that strongly suggested that they died, but leave room for plenty of doubt. They may have been left for dead, or maybe the monster which was going to eat them decided to save them for later. The 'official' explanation for what happened would be a near-death experience, because they certainly didn't get the full experience.

Or did they? They might be half-dead, or the living dead now... It'll depend on how far down the "slowly wasting away" path things go. :smallamused:


Either way, the players should be drawing their own conclusions. I'll just keep repeating that by the normal rules, dead is dead. As far as the PCs know. :smalltongue:

[Xuc Xac]

Well, it's supposed to be pretty obvious that someone intervened in their favor, and broke the rules for them. So, in that sense it isn't really contrived, since it's explicitly not a coincidence... :smalltongue:

That's what "contrived" means.

[Deaxsa]

so... what do you do when a character dies, but no others die, and the player has to roll up a new character until all the original characters die?

apart from that, though it's a cool idea.

i HATE (ok maybe hate is a bit strong, but VERY strongly dislike) the idea of "you have the choice to end the world". i mean, wow. that's so important, so relevant to everything, that it pretty much just goes into meta and becomes IRrelevant. if you do this, it will remove the suspension of disbelief. and the entire campaign will become just a game, in someone's house, where we pretended to be people who did things and made a super important choice that turns out, was not that important, because it was entirely in our imaginations. please do not do this to your group. they did not deserve this. even giving them a deck of many things does not ruin the setting/immersion.

jm2cp

[Geordnet]

That's what "contrived" means.
Well then, in this case I don't see it as a bad thing. After all, this is the middle of the story, so I'm not cheating the ending; in fact this should catalyze it. All the other threads of the story are building up to this too, so it isn't making everything which came before meaningless, either.




so... what do you do when a character dies, but no others die, and the player has to roll up a new character until all the original characters die?
Actually, that's why I included the part about Death "not coming to claim" the PCs. The PCs simply won't die until either they break the curse, or Death decides they aren't worth the effort any more.

Yeah, some of those "close calls" will be contrived, but I'm thinking that some sort of constant visual reminder of their curse will be cool enough to justify this. Especially if I count 'natural' near misses as brushes with Death, too. :smallbiggrin:


Unless you meant before this event; in which case it just won't happen. This needs to wait awhile before happening, anyways.



apart from that, though it's a cool idea.
Thank you. :smallsmile:



i HATE (ok maybe hate is a bit strong, but VERY strongly dislike) the idea of "you have the choice to end the world". i mean, wow. that's so important, so relevant to everything, that it pretty much just goes into meta and becomes IRrelevant. if you do this, it will remove the suspension of disbelief.
I don't get what you're saying here. :smallfrown:

I mean, it's not like it's going to be a sudden and total existence failure. There's an entire campaign's worth of stuff to happen first. There's going to be this massive Ragnarok-style war between Good and Evil, wherein everything ever done by PCs in this setting will be reflected somehow. And even then, the ultimate ending will be at best "bittersweet" unless the PCs act again. Build and fill an "ark" to save what's good in the world, undo what has been done to put Armageddon on hold again, seal the BBEG in a can so he can't take reality itself with him, start an exodus out of this doomed and dying world; there's still plenty of immersion to be had.

In fact, you could say that everything up to that point was just to give the players a reason to care about it all. :smallwink:

[Water_Bear]

I doubt your players will actually destroy the world. My money is that they are probably going to try their best to get rid of that Key, or at least hide it beyond any possibility of retrieval. You should plan for that eventuality; what happens if they stop the end of the world permanently?

[Mastikator]

What do you do if one of the players decides to commit suicide to see if death will bring him back?
It's something I might do.

[Vultawk]

I like it. Messing with the expected norms is a great way to surprise your players and it sets up an interesting bunch of plot lines.

[Bulhakov]

I love the Death as a quest-giver idea, but I think a lot will depend on how well you sell the idea to the players. Decide-the-fate-of-the-world campaigns are awesome for a devoted group that can keep playing for months/years "from zero to hero".

I think a slightly better reveal would be that Death states he/she chose the characters due to their destinies being strongly entwined with the destiny of the world. Death will give them their blessing (that they cannot die permanently*) in exchange for working against the other three horsemen (Death is the only one that doesn't want the apocalypse and really likes life to flourish, so that creatures die - simple circle of life thing. War wants the ultimate end-of the world battle. Famine just had enough and wants to die taking the world with him. Pride wants to create a new world to his liking after destroying this one).

Only after the reveal, Death gives them a choice - they can accept the blessing by following the first quest (to retrieve the item stolen by War) or choose to go on to the afterlife.


*Every time the PCs die, they get an automatic resurrection on the next sunrise (however, with standard death penalties such as xp and/or level loss, so they're not tempted to risk death too often). Additionally, they might get a chance to chat with Death during the down-time or do something as ghosts (like communicate to the party that they've been buried alive somewhere and are dying every day).

[NichG]

You could make the players themselves seek Death to enter his employ (which could be a manipulation in its own right).

For example, if its a fairly low-magic world, perhaps some encounter or situation ends up with all of them being infected with an incurable disease or curse. They know that they will die in six months, according to the full index of powers and sciences available to them. But at some point they also find a hint to a process, ritual, etc that has been used as a last resort by a royal family, a way to keep a dying king long enough to sire an heir, that kind of thing.

The ritual makes a deal with Death - so long as they are in Death's service, he will give to them the bits and pieces of lifespan left behind by people who die prematurely. This opens up the possibility of the PCs finding a way to gather those moments themselves (and thus escape Death's service and perhaps even rack up a few extra lives). It also means that the PCs don't have to TPK to make it work. Assumedly if they outlive their expiration date but Death gets impatient with them, the wraith thing can happen too - basically they transform into a being that can only survive by draining the lives of others.

Also, after this deal, whenever they're in battle and they kill an enemy, they see Death skulking around picking things from the bodies; no one else sees it of course. But its a good reminder that their sponsor is watching.

[Scow2]

I don't see the outrage over changing something like "Nobody comes back to life". After all, this is a wide, overarching campaign that is having clearly-supernatural things happen. The only kind of Player I'd imagine objecting to having something as explicitly spelled out as an exception to the original and normal functioning of the rules are the obnoxious "Quit the game as soon as the GM deviates from the rulebook" type of Rules Lawyers players (That seem to infest these forums). More reasonable players would either be "Okay. Let's go back adventuring!", or be wierded/freaked out (In a good way) and more invested in the plot and campaign (Even as blatant exceptions to the "People don't come back from the dead" rule), now that they've been given a glimpse of the underlying cosmology.

In fact - Pirates of the Carribean-style undead (in both, The Black Pearl and Flying Dutchmen's flavor) might be a good way to explain to the players what essentially happened to them.

[Geordnet]

I doubt your players will actually destroy the world. My money is that they are probably going to try their best to get rid of that Key, or at least hide it beyond any possibility of retrieval. You should plan for that eventuality; what happens if they stop the end of the world permanently?
It's not really possible to permanently prevent it, although it can be held of indefinitely. If they decide to try to hide key, then there's a whole lot of potential there, depending on what method they're planning on using. Literally every influential group in the world is going to want their hands on it, though, so it's going to be a constant struggle until they can find something long-term.

At which point, the current group of PCs keep playing until they die or retire to avoid interrogation by interested parties. Then, fast forwards a few centuries for the next group, as the wards around the key begin to weaken... :smallwink:



What do you do if one of the players decides to commit suicide to see if death will bring him back?
It's something I might do.
Death may be patient, but it waits for no man. It will not suffer foolishness. :smallamused:




I love the Death as a quest-giver idea, but I think a lot will depend on how well you sell the idea to the players. Decide-the-fate-of-the-world campaigns are awesome for a devoted group that can keep playing for months/years "from zero to hero".
Yeah, that's a good part of why I'm posting the idea here; I doubt I'll ever be able to use it... :smallfrown:



I think a slightly better reveal would be that Death states he/she chose the characters due to their destinies being strongly entwined with the destiny of the world.
Actually, something like that really is the reason Death chose the PCs, but it's not as cliche as "destiny". :smalltongue:
The PCs are more like "agents of entropy", catalysts for true and lasting change in the world. Death sees this, but there's no way that it's going to tell the PCs something which they don't need to know.

Death isn't even revealing everything the PCs do need to know... :smalltongue:


(Death is the only one that doesn't want the apocalypse and really likes life to flourish, so that creatures die - simple circle of life thing. War wants the ultimate end-of the world battle. Famine just had enough and wants to die taking the world with him. Pride wants to create a new world to his liking after destroying this one)
Actually, since I'm used to Death being portrayed either as ultimately neutral or even good a la Discworld, I wanted to pull an "Untwist (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TheUntwist)" by making him Evil. Pure Evil. As in, think Hitler crossed with the Illuminati. :smalleek:
Similarly, since War is typically portrayed as a mindless berserker, with at best some "code of honor" tacked on, so I wanted to put It in a more positive light. Right now I'm thinking some sort of "well-intentioned (yet still too extreme) anarchist".

Famine isn't as played out, though, so I can just have It totally apathetic to anything that doesn't involve indulging in excess. Maybe I'd borrow Its looks from Dorian Gray, perhaps.

And Ego/Pride is totally unheard of in this context, so I can play It completely straight. And despite being War's opposite, Pride would rather back It than the manipulative Death.


Only after the reveal, Death gives them a choice - they can accept the blessing by following the first quest (to retrieve the item stolen by War) or choose to go on to the afterlife.
I don't think this would work for two reasons. First, I want the players to feel like they've been pressed into service against their will. It'll encourage them to seek ways to break their curse. I suppose a "serve me or die" could still work, but stating "you shall serve me" like it's a matter of fact fits the personality I'm envisioning for Death a lot better.

Second, there shouldn't be any mention of an afterlife. At all. I need to keep stressing that "death is the end" for the theme to stick together, so an entity which would know better implying that it isn't is a total faux pas.

...Which is why this wouldn't work:

*Every time the PCs die, they get an automatic resurrection on the next sunrise (however, with standard death penalties such as xp and/or level loss, so they're not tempted to risk death too often).
Death isn't restoring the PCs to life. That is far beyond Its power to do so. Death is in fact anathema to life, so even a mere mortal would have better luck than It.

Death simply is willing to pass up on the opportunity to "collect" on his chosen pawns, until they have outlived their usefulness. :smallwink:
(Oh, and Death certainly isn't going to inform them of that, lest they 'test' it...)




You could make the players themselves seek Death to enter his employ (which could be a manipulation in its own right).
An interesting idea, which might serve as a backup in case Death ever needs to find another group of patsies.




I don't see the outrage over changing something like "Nobody comes back to life". After all, this is a wide, overarching campaign that is having clearly-supernatural things happen.
Neither do I; although I understand why people would groan at the blatant exploitation of a loophole that Death's employing to keep the PCs "alive". Because technically the rule isn't being broken: the PCs aren't coming back to life, they simply aren't dying. :smalltongue:



In fact - Pirates of the Carribean-style undead (in both, The Black Pearl and Flying Dutchmen's flavor) might be a good way to explain to the players what essentially happened to them.
Yeah, that's certainly something I'll want to draw on- specifically, the former of the two. :smallbiggrin:

[Deaxsa]

Actually, that's why I included the part about Death "not coming to claim" the PCs. The PCs simply won't die until either they break the curse, or Death decides they aren't worth the effort any more.

Yeah, some of those "close calls" will be contrived, but I'm thinking that some sort of constant visual reminder of their curse will be cool enough to justify this. Especially if I count 'natural' near misses as brushes with Death, too. :smallbiggrin:
Unless you meant before this event; in which case it just won't happen. This needs to wait awhile before happening, anyways.


erm... so the players are just immune to death? i'm confused. what happens when a player (assuming 3.5) hits -10 HP? you pretty much have to kill them. and don't tell me what you would do. pretend i am your player, my party and i are in combat, and i was just brought to -16 HP by an enemy crit. what happens?




I don't get what you're saying here. :smallfrown:

I mean, it's not like it's going to be a sudden and total existence failure. There's an entire campaign's worth of stuff to happen first. There's going to be this massive Ragnarok-style war between Good and Evil, wherein everything ever done by PCs in this setting will be reflected somehow. And even then, the ultimate ending will be at best "bittersweet" unless the PCs act again. Build and fill an "ark" to save what's good in the world, undo what has been done to put Armageddon on hold again, seal the BBEG in a can so he can't take reality itself with him, start an exodus out of this doomed and dying world; there's still plenty of immersion to be had.

In fact, you could say that everything up to that point was just to give the players a reason to care about it all. :smallwink:

I missed the ark bit, that's why i was in rant mode (sorry :smallfrown:). my basic point is that if you make a PC think about the significance of a game too much, without having another, larger layer of in-game reality, you will push the player out of game. so, without the "but they make an ark" bit, or a "you destroyed this reality but there are many more you can travel to" or something like that, you shunt the player off into the real world, because that is the next level of significance/reality.

(in other words, if i burn my house down, where do i go? out into the street. if i burn my setting down, where do i go? into reality, unless that was just a pocket setting in a larger multiverse)(that was a pretty bad analogy don't think too hard about it lol)

also, the fact that there's an "an entire campaign's worth of stuff" before the world-ending choice is what makes that particular part of the plot so much of a killjoy. you would shove all these great times into a setting, and then you destroy that setting. it's kinda like having your house burned down.

[Kurald Galain]

As a player, i dont like it because the PCs are being railroaded into a TPK.

[endoperez]

How about this:


Instead of intentionally trying to force the group to die, you keep the the Ol' Man Death on the reserves, and only bring him out if the players ever end up in an unwinnable situation. This would let you make a deadly campaign where, if the worst comes to worst, the players still have a chance of fixing things.




Also, there's a fantasy webcomic where something similar to this (one-off plot device brings the players back to life and gives them added responsibilities) plays out. Spoilered, because spoilers.
It's Guilded Age (http://guildedage.net/)

Relevant part, although I do believe it's worth reading the whole comic up to that point.
http://guildedage.net/comic/chapter-9-page-23/

[Water_Bear]

It's not really possible to permanently prevent it, although it can be held of indefinitely. If they decide to try to hide key, then there's a whole lot of potential there, depending on what method they're planning on using. Literally every influential group in the world is going to want their hands on it, though, so it's going to be a constant struggle until they can find something long-term.

At which point, the current group of PCs keep playing until they die or retire to avoid interrogation by interested parties. Then, fast forwards a few centuries for the next group, as the wards around the key begin to weaken... :smallwink:

My point is, that's a really unsatisfying conclusion; either they leave the game knowing they've essentially accomplished nothing or you're forcing them to keep replaying the campaign with new characters until they fail. That kind of sucks.

While I think this sort of ending would be perfect for a movie/book/tv series/other non-interactive medium, you have to remember that in a tabletop RPG or video game Players are much more invested in their character's goals than a pure observer. Watching someone fail tragically to save their world is awesome; playing someone failing tragically to save their world sucks. If they do mess up absolutely let them fail but if they win that should mean more than "push the clock back another century."

(I get where you're coming from with the "end of the world as a good thing" based on the mythology you're using, but... it's completely insane. Destroying the world, especially all of material existence, for some abstract philosophical principle is a villain plot for a reason; it is a rejection of life, literally trading the real world for a nihilistic fantasy.)

[Geordnet]

erm... so the players are just immune to death? i'm confused. what happens when a player (assuming 3.5) hits -10 HP? you pretty much have to kill them. and don't tell me what you would do. pretend i am your player, my party and i are in combat, and i was just brought to -16 HP by an enemy crit. what happens?
You might stop moving for a bit, but you wouldn't die. (Rule zero applies.)

Anyways, that's one of the reasons why 3.5 is a bad choice of system for this game. Although, the main reason is so I can include roguelike levels of danger without killing off multiple PCs every session. (They'd be "wounded" instead, which takes them out of the fight but not the campaign.) :smalltongue:



also, the fact that there's an "an entire campaign's worth of stuff" before the world-ending choice is what makes that particular part of the plot so much of a killjoy. you would shove all these great times into a setting, and then you destroy that setting. it's kinda like having your house burned down.
I see it more like the conclusion of an epic movie or the end of a good book. I mean, it's not like I'm burning the campaign notes at the same time, or mind-wiping my players.

Nothing can go on forever, so everything has to have an end. But what an epic ending it shall be! :smallbiggrin:


(Also, this is literally Armageddon, as in "destroy the world so a better one can take its place. So there's that. Also, my historical wargaming background well-prepares me for writing an adventure set in the "past" of a previous session.)




Instead of intentionally trying to force the group to die, you keep the the Ol' Man Death on the reserves, and only bring him out if the players ever end up in an unwinnable situation. This would let you make a deadly campaign where, if the worst comes to worst, the players still have a chance of fixing things.
Actually, that's the reason I originally came up with the "Death as a source of exposition" idea in the first place; so I could mulligan a TPK by pretending it was part of the plan all along. :smalltongue:

Now that you say it though, you're probably right that it would be a bad idea to try and force it. I mean, not only does that feel cheap to the players, what do I do if one escapes? Drop rocks on him?

There have been some other good suggestions on how to introduce Death to the PCs without a TPK on this thread, so it'll probably be better to use one of them than railroad the PCs into "dying".

[Deaxsa]

You might stop moving for a bit, but you wouldn't die. (Rule zero applies.)

Anyways, that's one of the reasons why 3.5 is a bad choice of system for this game. Although, the main reason is so I can include roguelike levels of danger without killing off multiple PCs every session. (They'd be "wounded" instead, which takes them out of the fight but not the campaign.) :smalltongue:

okay, i think it will be a bit contrived (like many other people in this thread), but i think it'd be cool. using 3.5 as the example (simply because that's what i'm most familiar with) i would say that you should either A) make sure that no one ever goes from positive to under -10 in one hit, and hide the stabilization rolls ("oh my, your group has has REALLY good look with stabilizing" :smallbiggrin:), or to make it so B) they do not die, but they get massive amounts of plot CC applied to them. like, for instance, "you are enveloped in so much excruciating pain that you simply can't move. you don't know where this is coming from, or why this is happening, all you feel right now is pain." and then make it so they cannot take any actions whatsoever for another 10d20 rounds, after which they are exhausted. in other words, not exploitable, and something the characters would want to avoid like the plague. and then you can call out any players that try to exploit the fact that they cannot die :smallbiggrin: (well, not really, but you can look at them with a mean frown :smallmad:)



I see it more like the conclusion of an epic movie or the end of a good book. I mean, it's not like I'm burning the campaign notes at the same time, or mind-wiping my players.

Nothing can go on forever, so everything has to have an end. But what an epic ending it shall be! :smallbiggrin:


(Also, this is literally Armageddon, as in "destroy the world so a better one can take its place. So there's that. Also, my historical wargaming background well-prepares me for writing an adventure set in the "past" of a previous session.)

yea, i guess we should agree to disagree in this scenario then. i'm not saying it can't be done right or anything, i'm just saying that in my experience, it can be a total killjoy for the entire campaign, and i know that as DM, that's not a risk i'd be willing to take (along with the fact it's a bit cliche, but that's just me trying to bash your ideas so you don't risk this plot :smalltongue:). like how DMPCs are very, very hard to do right. i'd just stay away from this ending if i were in your shoes.

[Geordnet]

My point is, that's a really unsatisfying conclusion; either they leave the game knowing they've essentially accomplished nothing or you're forcing them to keep replaying the campaign with new characters until they fail. That kind of sucks.
I think you're interpreting it in the worst possible light. If you come at it from a less pessimistic viewpoint, you'll notice that a hundred years is enough time for entire generations to live in peace. In a sense, every day is just putting off the inevitability of death anyways, so is it not the journey that counts? Every victory counts.

Also, it's not like this is the only plot in town. Possibly the most important, and the most central, but the world is bigger than just it. If the PCs find a long-term solution, then that plot is done for the campaign -but the campaign itself doesn't end until all other plots are finished. Similarly, the next campaign in the setting doesn't have to be about it, either.



(I get where you're coming from with the "end of the world as a good thing" based on the mythology you're using, but... it's completely insane. Destroying the world, especially all of material existence, for some abstract philosophical principle is a villain plot for a reason; it is a rejection of life, literally trading the real world for a nihilistic fantasy.)
I said that it would trigger Armageddon, not "destroy all of material existence". There is a subtle but crucial difference.

There will be no discontinuity between the old world and the new one (which will be just as if not more "material" as the old). There will be no critical existence failure, unless the PCs screw up epically. If they do particularly well, even the earth-shattering, natural disasters and physical upheaval will be minimized.

Hm... It might be difficult to explain exactly what's different then without giving a lot of context about the setting. But there is a fundamental shift in the underlying order of things that's for the better. And there's nothing set in stone saying the new world can't just be a continuation of the old one with that single thing changed.




yea, i guess we should agree to disagree in this scenario then. i'm not saying it can't be done right or anything, i'm just saying that in my experience, it can be a total killjoy for the entire campaign, and i know that as DM, that's not a risk i'd be willing to take (along with the fact it's a bit cliche, but that's just me trying to bash your ideas so you don't risk this plot :smalltongue:). like how DMPCs are very, very hard to do right. i'd just stay away from this ending if i were in your shoes.
Yeah, that's what I'm having a hard time understanding. DMPCs are a good example, because if I understand the concept then I just don't get why they're seen as so tricky. I mean, how is it different from any other NPC? :smallconfused:

Then again, I know this probably means I'd probably be an offender; yet knowing that makes me less of one... :smalltongue:


(Not that it matters much, I'm unlikely ever to actually get to the point of using this. I think that all I really would need is the right group, though.)

[Jerthanis]

Basically, one major issue is that essentially you're pulling a lot of things together to put the characters into a specific encounter with an NPC who tells them they MUST do X, and they hold death over those characters like a sword of damocles... It's like a Lord British encounter, but where Lord British is Death. Your almost loving description of the mastermind nature of this character is an additional warning flag by the way.

Oh, but the leash will be slack! They can do whatever they want in their aims, but whenever they stray, you'll just whip them by slowly corrupting them into Wraiths! No problem right? As long as they don't pull against your leash, they won't even feel it! And besides... you're not even KILLING them for stepping out of line, you're just annihilating their sense of self and making them into an utter abomination and mockery of their former selves.

I've got more advice on a more positive spin on this same general plot thread, but I've got to go for now.

[Geordnet]

Oh, but the leash will be slack! They can do whatever they want in their aims, but whenever they stray, you'll just whip them by slowly corrupting them into Wraiths! No problem right? As long as they don't pull against your leash, they won't even feel it! And besides... you're not even KILLING them for stepping out of line, you're just annihilating their sense of self and making them into an utter abomination and mockery of their former selves.
What? Oh; no, no, no... You've got it all wrong! :smalleek:

That's what's going to happen to them if they don't fight Death's grip on them, forge their own path, break free of the curse. :smallbiggrin:


It's Death that wants them as slaves, not the GM. I want them to fight, to not submit to servitude. It's a struggle they can win. :smalltongue:
For their entire 'natural' lifespans, at least...


Your almost loving description of the mastermind nature of this character is an additional warning flag by the way.
That happens whenever I come up with an idea I think is pretty cool. Usually it's confined to aspects of the setting, and not the characters within (in this case, they overlapped). It probably isn't entirely healthy, but for a variety of reasons I'm not too worried about it. :smalltongue:

[EccentricCircle]

I've done something very similar to this and it worked out very well indeed. See this post for more details:
http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=15277780&postcount=5

[Water_Bear]

I said that it would trigger Armageddon, not "destroy all of material existence". There is a subtle but crucial difference.

There will be no discontinuity between the old world and the new one (which will be just as if not more "material" as the old). There will be no critical existence failure, unless the PCs screw up epically. If they do particularly well, even the earth-shattering, natural disasters and physical upheaval will be minimized.

Hm... It might be difficult to explain exactly what's different then without giving a lot of context about the setting. But there is a fundamental shift in the underlying order of things that's for the better. And there's nothing set in stone saying the new world can't just be a continuation of the old one with that single thing changed.

I'm confused here; you said before that the PCs would need to load up an Ark of Good stuff to carry into the new world, with the implication that the rest is going to be destroyed. Did I misunderstand you?


What? Oh; no, no, no... You've got it all wrong! :smalleek:

That's what's going to happen to them if they don't fight Death's grip on them, forge their own path, break free of the curse. :smallbiggrin:


It's Death that wants them as slaves, not the GM. I want them to fight, to not submit to servitude. It's a struggle they can win. :smalltongue:
[COLOR="White"]For their entire 'natural' lifespans, at least...[/COLOR

I think you've missed Jerthanis's point; you are still compelling Players to follow your plot with the threat of destroying their characters if they try to anything else.

It's the kind of plot which can work very well or be a horrible grind, with little in-between. And unfortunately the DMs most confident about their ability to pull it off are typically those worst suited to doing so (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect). I avoid them myself, though obviously there are DMs good enough to run them well.

[NichG]

I think the important thing with 'threatened into service' plots to make them run in a way that the players enjoy is to understand fully that the point of using this plot device is to amplify the satisfaction when the PCs eventually turn on their employer/unwanted master. The NPC who is threatening them should not be redeemed/turn out to be a 'nice' villain/etc, and absolutely must not be an actual good guy. Furthermore, the PCs must eventually get to the level of power, influence, or opportunity where they can in fact slip the yoke.

If the players ever feel that you're upset that they aren't taking this threat lying down, then there's going to be the sentiment that you as DM are expecting them to be good slaves, and they will resent you instead of the NPC. Furthermore to any happenstances or observations used to 'encourage' them to be loyal - e.g. if another NPC says 'just do it, its not so bad' then that will be seen as a DM mouthpiece and again the resentment will go to the DM instead of the NPC. Rather, everything else in the setting and every other character should be shouting at the PCs 'you have to betray this guy'. Its not subtle, but its how you make it really clear that this is a railroad whose rails are meant to be broken.

On the other hand, an NPC with temporary power over the PCs but who eventually falters, messes up, etc, gives the players an opportunity to take out all that frustration on a character in the game. It makes finally defeating the NPC's plans much more satisfying.

[Geordnet]

I've done something very similar to this and it worked out very well indeed. See this post for more details:
http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=15277780&postcount=5
Yeah, that's very much like what I want. The main difference is that I'd put a positive spin on it, instead of a negative one. :smallbiggrin:



I'm confused here; you said before that the PCs would need to load up an Ark of Good stuff to carry into the new world, with the implication that the rest is going to be destroyed. Did I misunderstand you?
In a way. "Ark" in this case has basically the same meaning as "fallout shelter": it doesn't actually move, it just lets what's inside survive the chaos as the world outside changes.

Also, that's only one of several things the PCs could do. (I'm trying to be as open to player initiative as possible.) Basically, the PCs just need to deal with the collateral damage from Ragnarok; that's all.



It's the kind of plot which can work very well or be a horrible grind, with little in-between. And unfortunately the DMs most confident about their ability to pull it off are typically those worst suited to doing so (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect). I avoid them myself, though obviously there are DMs good enough to run them well.
Well, it's a good thing I doubt that I'm the right person for the job, then. :smalltongue:




I think the important thing with 'threatened into service' plots to make them run in a way that the players enjoy is to understand fully that the point of using this plot device is to amplify the satisfaction when the PCs eventually turn on their employer/unwanted master. The NPC who is threatening them should not be redeemed/turn out to be a 'nice' villain/etc, and absolutely must not be an actual good guy. Furthermore, the PCs must eventually get to the level of power, influence, or opportunity where they can in fact slip the yoke.
That's the plan. :smallbiggrin:

(The 'yoke' actually isn't much of one, either. Death is by no means omniscient, even when there's dying around. And he can't afford to just snap his fingers and kill the PCs on a whim, one of the other powers that be would notice and start asking questions. So, the PCs have plenty of opportunity to slip it.)

[Jay R]

I prefer worlds in which death is a real threat, and there is no Raise Dead or Resurrection. If you don't believe that you can lose the game, it isn't a game.

But I may save this as a potential recovery of a party if a TPK happens.

[In the ideal game of D&D, players know that death is real, it can happen, it will be devastating, and it almost happens with alarming frequency.)

[Geordnet]

I prefer worlds in which death is a real threat, and there is no Raise Dead or Resurrection. If you don't believe that you can lose the game, it isn't a game.

Same here, actually. :smallwink:


(That's why Death isn't going to inform the PCs about the details of It's curse. The PCs will have to find out on their own. And even then, the penalties will be... Dire. :smallamused:)

[Doomboy911]

Alright I like what you're doing. I'm not reading what everyone else said. Here's what I have to say.

Thesius is delivered the killing blow, his life draws to a close as he falls to his knees. He thinks back to all the love and joy he's been so kindly given but he knows this is the end. As his last breath escapes him he is firmly kissed, he now sees a pale, crying woman in front of him "Get up I won't let this be your end, stop him and stop War." He blinks she's gone, he takes another breath but finds he doesn't need to, he feels cold.

That's how you do it. Not the whole party, just one man to push everyone in the right direction.

I'll try to keep on this thread but you'll get a better response from me by actually messaging me.

[Jerthanis]

What? Oh; no, no, no... You've got it all wrong! :smalleek:

That's what's going to happen to them if they don't fight Death's grip on them, forge their own path, break free of the curse. :smallbiggrin:


It's Death that wants them as slaves, not the GM. I want them to fight, to not submit to servitude. It's a struggle they can win. :smalltongue:
For their entire 'natural' lifespans, at least...

This really isn't how a typical Player is going to see it based on what you've presented. The fact of the matter is that an invincible NPC of godlike power has contrived a method of control over them by orchestrating a situation beyond their control or influence in order to draft them into use as pawns.

That the PCs are expected to trick their way out of the situation doesn't change the fundamentally disempowering nature of the initial setup... either they largely go along with it, or they impotently rage and still must go along with it until they can discover some way to escape their predicament. The only other option is to not participate in the game. This disempowering initial state isn't a deal breaker, but it is one of those things you tend to see on "most annoying things DMs do" lists and can include those things like Geasing the PCs, poisoning them and withholding the antidote, or having immensely powerful wizards hedging them along into their adventure with the implicit threat that the wizard will punish them in some way if they refuse the call to action.

If you DO run this plot, I would warn the players before the first stroke of the pen on a character sheet that this would be the basic idea of the game. Springing this as a surprise would go over poorly I think. In fact, if the characters have no hope whatsoever in the battle, narrate their loss rather than force them to roll dice knowing it's pointless. Or better yet, start with the encounter with Death, and allow the PCs to tell HIM how they each got there. Letting PCs have control over how they got there may blunt the impact that they had no control over whether they got there or not, and to some extent may help them not feel so bad about not having control over their initial course of action immediately following the encounter.

If you prefer to have it arise organically, I have two alternate ways to frame this that might dispel some degree of this potential difficulty. You could have War or his forces kill all of the PCs in their direct attempt to steal the item in question, and then have Death step in and say essentially that he's supposed to carry them on to the other side but can decide to give them another chance at the item, with some additional resistance against death. Establishing Death as an ally and benefactor rather than mastermind and slavemaster greatly changes the context. Have him be honest about the situation... heck, have him explain the Wraith thing and have him claim that he can't keep it from happening.

Alternatively, tell the players ahead of time that you're planning on running an extremely high lethality game, and have Death step in ahead of time and present them with the option of accepting his dark blessing, granting them respawns essentially, while normally a character in this world who dies is gone for good. Those PCs who don't want to accept can just roll up new characters when they die, but those who go along with him can accumulate greater overall power and reach higher level. These respawns might have story implication on their future choices or statistics, but it's not like "Say yes to Death's quest or you aren't playing this game"



That happens whenever I come up with an idea I think is pretty cool. Usually it's confined to aspects of the setting, and not the characters within (in this case, they overlapped). It probably isn't entirely healthy, but for a variety of reasons I'm not too worried about it. :smalltongue:

It's not a problem to like the things you come up with, it's just that when a major NPC with power over the PCs is one of the characters that the DM thinks is totally awesome, it is a warning sign that the DM won't recognize when the NPC's power or position are going to be abused, overexposed, or indulged in. Be cognizant of how much you like this NPC when considering how often his touch needs to be felt on your game and be very very aware of what the PCs think of him, and if his presence annoys them, it doesn't matter how much you like him, you have to keep him out of the picture as much as you possibly can.

[Geordnet]

That's how you do it. Not the whole party, just one man to push everyone in the right direction.
Hm, that certainly could work. It might even be better that way, although it'd depend on other aspects of the campaign.




This really isn't how a typical Player is going to see it based on what you've presented. The fact of the matter is that an invincible NPC of godlike power has contrived a method of control over them by orchestrating a situation beyond their control or influence in order to draft them into use as pawns.
Invincible? No. Godlike power? No more than a high-level wizard. Orchestrating a situation beyond the PC's control? They're the ones who fell into the TPK in the first place.

Not to mention, it won't even look to the PCs like they're being hired. They were already looking for the MacGuffin, remember?

Death is just going to show up and say "You know this thing that you were looking for? I know why you can't find it. War has it. To retrieve it, you must..." Completely neglecting to mention that he's putting a curse on them to ensure that they finish the task.

In fact, there's a fair chance he'll end up looking like the good guy to the PCs. One who just did them a big favor by sparing/saving their lives. Heck, they might even see his curse as a boon, too. :smalltongue:


And even from the start, the only thing between the players and the lifting of Death's curse is knowledge, not power. If the players had to fight Death right then and there, they'd have a good chance of winning. (That is to say, of fending Death off long enough that It is forced to retreat lest one of the other powers that be notices.)



It's not a problem to like the things you come up with, it's just that when a major NPC with power over the PCs is one of the characters that the DM thinks is totally awesome, it is a warning sign that the DM won't recognize when the NPC's power or position are going to be abused, overexposed, or indulged in. Be cognizant of how much you like this NPC when considering how often his touch needs to be felt on your game and be very very aware of what the PCs think of him, and if his presence annoys them, it doesn't matter how much you like him, you have to keep him out of the picture as much as you possibly can.
I know. I'm keeping a close eye on it. It helps that I care only about the concept, not the character itself. :smalltongue:

[Jerthanis]

Invincible? No. Godlike power? No more than a high-level wizard. Orchestrating a situation beyond the PC's control? They're the ones who fell into the TPK in the first place.

You're going to have to let the players know ahead of time that in your gameworld, the personification of death itself is going to be about as powerful as a high level wizard, because that flies directly in the face of the very concept you're drawing on to make this interesting in the first place. Death is an implacable, invincible foe that stalks us all, and in the end will always win. If it's anything else, then you're not really talking about Death... you're kind of talking about a high level wizard with a skull mask.

And if Death didn't orchestrate the TPK (nor War), then you did. That's arguably much worse.

And one last note... comparing Death to a high level wizard doesn't really change my point at all... I specifically mentioned "Old Wizard" coercing cooperation with the plot as one of the things that finds its way onto "annoying things that DMs do" lists along with nebulous curses, poisonings, geases, or shock collars.

None of those are automatic deal-breakers, like I said... but I certainly wouldn't run such a game without letting the players know this was the concept ahead of time. If I were to have this happen to me as a player in the middle of a game and without expecting it, I would probably grumble about it, but go along with it.



I know. I'm keeping a close eye on it. It helps that I care only about the concept, not the character itself. :smalltongue:

It's clear that this is the case, but when you're dealing with a character like Death, whose character and concept are much more closely intertwined than most, and that intertwined nature is what makes the idea unique in the first place, to care about concept IS to care about the character itself.

After all, if Death == High Level Wizard, then you could run the same plot with an NPC high level wizard with a different name and lose nothing. Since you would clearly lose something with that change, Death as a concept implies a lot about the character, both in your mind and more importantly, to your players' minds.

[Geordnet]

You're going to have to let the players know ahead of time that in your gameworld, the personification of death itself is going to be about as powerful as a high level wizard, because that flies directly in the face of the very concept you're drawing on to make this interesting in the first place. Death is an implacable, invincible foe that stalks us all, and in the end will always win.
I don't see how the two concepts are mutually exclusive... :smallconfused:

Heck, "an invincible, implacable enemy" is how I intend to portray undead in the setting anyways, down to the weakest shambling corpse. Power doesn't have as much to do with it as the simple untiring nature of it... Stab it, crush it, hack it, burn it, and it will keep coming at you. The same applies for Death; It doesn't need to be able to kill with a thought to be scary; in fact it's the stalking that makes it so thematic. Death doesn't need power... It's patient enough to wear you down slowly. :smallamused:



And if Death didn't orchestrate the TPK (nor War), then you did. That's arguably much worse.
Why must the TPK be orchestrated at all? :smallconfused:

[NichG]

If concern over the dis-empowering feeling of having someone be forcing the PCs to action is a problem, combat it with immediate things the PCs can do to thwart Death in a small way.

Think the setup of La Femme Nikita or Dollhouse or Alias. In all cases, there's a big powerful organization that basically controls the main character and cannot be attacked directly. But at the same time, every episode is about an opportunity to stick it to the boss in a way that may get the main characters in trouble, but which eventually ends up wearing away at the power of the big organization.

If you think 'they'll go along with it for 5 sessions then break free in the next 5' then that may not be so good. Instead if you say 'each session there will be something they can do to fight back against Death and can see that their fight is making a difference' then it need not be disempowering (though it'll be a very different experience than the D&D norm since you'll have to be on eggshells at times).

For example, if Death just says 'You must find this key and until then I won't let you die, but will slowly drain away your humanity'. Thats a bit too simple to thwart much - either you find the key or you don't. But if instead Death says 'You need to find this key, but its protected by the minions of War, Famine, and Pestilence and their machinations interfere with my plans. You must go and stop Pestilence from calling me away with this Bubonic Plague constantly, so I may concentrate on my search.' then the party can figure out how to complete the official mission (stop the Bubonic Plague) while at the same time perhaps causing some other source of massive deaths that distracts Death instead.

Honestly for the single-minded goal that Death has, its hard to partially thwart things (unlike the aforementioned spy shows where basically 'help the target fake their death' instead of 'kill the target' is the usual gimmick). This'd require a lot of careful thought to pull off.

Alternately, if you do the 'sympathetic Death' trick, it doesn't matter at all; if the PCs want to be helping Death then the issue evaporates completely (and instead your issue is how to get them to eventually figure out that they're helping someone they shouldn't).

[Water_Bear]

I don't see how the two concepts are mutually exclusive... :smallconfused:

The problem is if you can just kick Death's ass and walk away, why do badasses die at all? A personification of a concept is still principally defined by that concept; if you can outrun/outfight/outsmart Death, then that means people who are fast/strong/smart enough are effectively immortal.


Why must the TPK be orchestrated at all? :smallconfused:

Because otherwise it won't happen? Even in high-lethality games, TPKs are rare; when PCs know that Death is final (or think so anyway) they tend to act a lot more carefully.

[Geordnet]

The problem is if you can just kick Death's ass and walk away, why do badasses die at all? A personification of a concept is still principally defined by that concept; if you can outrun/outfight/outsmart Death, then that means people who are fast/strong/smart enough are effectively immortal.
Nobody can outrun Death forever. No matter how badass, they will always tire in the end. :smallamused:

But that doesn't mean short-term victories are impossible. :smalltongue:



Because otherwise it won't happen? Even in high-lethality games, TPKs are rare; when PCs know that Death is final (or think so anyway) they tend to act a lot more carefully.
The PCs only need to slip up once. :smallyuk:

(And if they don't, there have been several alternate ways of introducing Death suggested on this thread.)

[TinyHippo]

As a player, i dont like it because the PCs are being railroaded into a TPK.

^^This. And as a DM, I've always thought "And then a god/death/destiny/fate/other irresitible force compels you do to X quest line" feels lazy and sloppy. A literal deus ex machina. Some players may dig it, but I would not, personally.

[Scow2]

The problem is if you can just kick Death's ass and walk away, why do badasses die at all? A personification of a concept is still principally defined by that concept; if you can outrun/outfight/outsmart Death, then that means people who are fast/strong/smart enough are effectively immortal.



Because otherwise it won't happen? Even in high-lethality games, TPKs are rare; when PCs know that Death is final (or think so anyway) they tend to act a lot more carefully.

I've only found TPKs to be exceptionally rare when the GM intercedes to reduce the difficulty of an otherwise-normal encounter on the fly to give the survivors an out.

However... after the TPK, I'd suggest taking a break (Maybe end the session). This gives the illusion of you having to prepare the new plot thread, and gives your players time to get over their outrage at dying and start seeing what they could have done to prevent the TPK.

And the biggest, strongest, toughest guys can't outrun or outfight Death when they are unconscious, broken-boned, rent-fleshed, or bled out - the times Death comes for people.

[Jerthanis]

I don't see how the two concepts are mutually exclusive... :smallconfused:

I said that having an invincible quest giver of godlike power was playing with fire because it undermines one of the fundamental principles of tabletop RPGs, that of player agency. You claimed that Death wasn't an invincible enemy of godlike power, and was more akin to a high level wizard. A high level wizard can be meaningfully opposed, and victory is in the reach of a smart and resourceful party.

Death cannot be beaten, ever, by anyone. Do you see now how they're mutually exclusive? You can't have a malign questgiver who is not an invincible being of godlike power who is also Death, because it's not Death if it's a high level wizard. Having a malign questgiver who is an invincible being of godlike power is never the most fun aspect of an RPG.

There can be things in this game which become fun because of dealing with these high level concepts directly, but getting put under their power is going to be a source of frustration at first. I would warn the Players this frustration was coming, and that I know that it will be frustrating so they can have confidence this won't be an "Elminster follows the party around making sure they're doing what I want them to do" plot with Death in place of Elminster.



Why must the TPK be orchestrated at all? :smallconfused:

Because otherwise this plot won't come up? You know, if you put foes in the PCs' path which they cannot beat or circumvent, someone had to place them there, and that someone is you.

[Scow2]

I said that having an invincible quest giver of godlike power was playing with fire because it undermines one of the fundamental principles of tabletop RPGs, that of player agency. You claimed that Death wasn't an invincible enemy of godlike power, and was more akin to a high level wizard. A high level wizard can be meaningfully opposed, and victory is in the reach of a smart and resourceful party.

Death cannot be beaten, ever, by anyone. Do you see now how they're mutually exclusive? You can't have a malign questgiver who is not an invincible being of godlike power who is also Death, because it's not Death if it's a high level wizard. Having a malign questgiver who is an invincible being of godlike power is never the most fun aspect of an RPG.

There can be things in this game which become fun because of dealing with these high level concepts directly, but getting put under their power is going to be a source of frustration at first. I would warn the Players this frustration was coming, and that I know that it will be frustrating so they can have confidence this won't be an "Elminster follows the party around making sure they're doing what I want them to do" plot with Death in place of Elminster.I think you are interpretting "Player Agency" far too broadly. There are forces out their greater than the players. They don't necessarily have the power to face them. But they do have the power and freedom to subvert and shanghai their efforts. Wasn't there that one crazy guy who killed Yog-Sothoth in a Call of Cthulhu campaing or something?

If they don't resent the level of direction they're given, it's not an issue at all. If they do, it's greater motivation to exercise and strengthen their agency as it's tested. True agency isn't gained by whining to the DM that you don't have enough choices when the plot starts singing "She'll be Coming 'Round the Mountains" - at least not compared to blowing up the illusory rails and finding the true game underneath. A lot of games are railroads with an illusion of choice. This one seems to be an open game with an illusion of a railroad.


Because otherwise this plot won't come up? You know, if you put foes in the PCs' path which they cannot beat or circumvent, someone had to place them there, and that someone is you.
Just because the players don't best the challenge doesn't mean they couldn't. All it takes is one lucky Goblin that can't roll below an 19 when everyone else can't roll above a 5. He's already said he has plenty of options to get Death involved even if the party's not so unlucky as to be hit with a TPK or near-TPK (Which is far more common, and likewise enough to trigger an encounter with Death).

[NichG]

One thing that no one seems to have thought of yet with this plotline, that I'm sure Geordnet's players would given sufficient time working on the issue.

If the problem is human mortality, why not just kill Death? If Death is approachable as an enemy, and in fact is being set up to be an enemy of the party, it seems like this is the natural extension of that line of play.

I mean, 'you can hold off armageddon, at least for the remainder of your natural life' is solved by 'become immortal'. Furthermore, if no one at all can die then the cosmic forces involved in the armageddon are going to feel kind of silly even if someone gets the key and calls them to play.

[Scow2]

One thing that no one seems to have thought of yet with this plotline, that I'm sure Geordnet's players would given sufficient time working on the issue.

If the problem is human mortality, why not just kill Death? If Death is approachable as an enemy, and in fact is being set up to be an enemy of the party, it seems like this is the natural extension of that line of play.

I mean, 'you can hold off armageddon, at least for the remainder of your natural life' is solved by 'become immortal'. Furthermore, if no one at all can die then the cosmic forces involved in the armageddon are going to feel kind of silly even if someone gets the key and calls them to play.Death can't die because he can't collect himself. Death doesn't kill - he collects.

How will that immortality be working out for you when you're at -100 HP, destabilize long before you can ever hope to get out of the negatives, completely unconscious (Aside from the ever-present agony), unable to move or do anything, and can't roll up a new character "Because you're still playing this one".

[NichG]

Death can't die because he can't collect himself. Death doesn't kill - he collects.

Well lets say then that Death is knocked out, at -100hp, and dumped in a constantly damaging environment. 'Actually dead' and 'unable to perform his duties' are more or less equivalent here. Beyond that it may be possible to 'destroy' or 'unmake' what you can't 'kill': Barghest's Feast Death's soul, become him and collect yourself in the ultimate sacrifice, whatever.



How will that immortality be working out for you when you're at -100 HP, destabilize long before you can ever hope to get out of the negatives, completely unconscious (Aside from the ever-present agony), unable to move or do anything, and can't roll up a new character "Because you're still playing this one".

In exchange for saving the world for all eternity and rendering all life immortal? That's a pretty epic sacrifice.

[Scow2]

Well lets say then that Death is knocked out, at -100hp, and dumped in a constantly damaging environment. 'Actually dead' and 'unable to perform his duties' are more or less equivalent here. Beyond that it may be possible to 'destroy' or 'unmake' what you can't 'kill': Barghest's Feast Death's soul, become him and collect yourself in the ultimate sacrifice, whatever.But Death is a supernatural thing. If he's found out of line, he's put back in line.

In exchange for saving the world for all eternity and rendering all life immortal? That's a pretty epic sacrifice.How are you saving the world? Getting rid of death doesn't get rid of disease, injury, or necrosis. All you'd end up with by killing Death is the Un-dead.

[NichG]

But Death is a supernatural thing. If he's found out of line, he's put back in line.

Why? Or by what exactly? I mean, these answers are highly setting dependent and this particular Death is no more powerful than 'a high level Wizard'. If nothing else you get to find out what exactly corrects the universe and then you can start interacting with that. Seems promising.



How are you saving the world? Getting rid of death doesn't get rid of disease, injury, or necrosis. All you'd end up with by killing Death is the Un-dead.

You prevent armageddon for an arbitrary length of time. And in a setting without an afterlife, undeath is a pretty smart path to take for the long-view.

[Geordnet]

^^This. And as a DM, I've always thought "And then a god/death/destiny/fate/other irresitible force compels you do to X quest line" feels lazy and sloppy. A literal deus ex machina. Some players may dig it, but I would not, personally.
Look a bit closer, you'll see that this isn't that at all. :smallannoyed:



However... after the TPK, I'd suggest taking a break (Maybe end the session). This gives the illusion of you having to prepare the new plot thread, and gives your players time to get over their outrage at dying and start seeing what they could have done to prevent the TPK.
That sounds like a good idea. (I'd need some time to figure out how they manage to miraculously not die in a way that's convincing, anyways.)


And the biggest, strongest, toughest guys can't outrun or outfight Death when they are unconscious, broken-boned, rent-fleshed, or bled out - the times Death comes for people.
Exactly. :smallamused:



I said that having an invincible quest giver of godlike power was playing with fire because it undermines one of the fundamental principles of tabletop RPGs, that of player agency. You claimed that Death wasn't an invincible enemy of godlike power, and was more akin to a high level wizard. A high level wizard can be meaningfully opposed, and victory is in the reach of a smart and resourceful party.
Is not merely living meaningful resistance, and persisting to live a victory? :smallconfused:

Compare "**** you, Death! You can't take me until I let you!" vs. "Great, we killed <insert name here>! ...Now what?" :smallcool:


I think you are interpretting "Player Agency" far too broadly. There are forces out their greater than the players. They don't necessarily have the power to face them. But they do have the power and freedom to subvert and shanghai their efforts.
Yep. I find it much more interesting this way, anyways. :smallwink:


Wasn't there that one crazy guy who killed Yog-Sothoth in a Call of Cthulhu campaing or something?
Old Man Henderson (http://1d4chan.org/wiki/OldManHenderson). And it was Hastur that he killed. (It's that kind of "doing the impossible through hardship" that I love to see. :smallbiggrin:)



If the problem is human mortality, why not just kill Death?
You can't kill Death. You can only fend It off for a bit longer. :smallwink:



I mean, 'you can hold off armageddon, at least for the remainder of your natural life' is solved by 'become immortal'.
Assuming that's even possible in-setting.

...Assuming "Immortality" is anything more than Death biding Its time... :smallcool:



Death can't die because he can't collect himself. Death doesn't kill - he collects.
It may be nitpicking, but that actually isn't true for this setting. (It's part of my deliberate 'untwist' of convention.) Death is the cessation/absence of life, personified. Period. :smalltongue:



Why? Or by what exactly? I mean, these answers are highly setting dependent and this particular Death is no more powerful than 'a high level Wizard'. If nothing else you get to find out what exactly corrects the universe and then you can start interacting with that. Seems promising.
Death is a force. You can no more kill death than you could kill gravity. You can fight it for a time, for as long as you can, but it is always there... Watching, waiting...

And like gravity, it can be the weakest of the four, yet at the same time be the most omnipresent and dominating on the large scale. :smallbiggrin:
Actually, that gives me some good ideas for the overall nature of the four. Power scales inversely with prevalence, in order from first (Pride, most powerful/least prevalent) to last (Death, least powerful/most prevalent).

Death's haunt is unlimited, but It is the easiest to fend off (people do it every living moment without thinking). Its power is so limited, that It will only attempt to end one "early" if It is desperate, because that takes a lot of effort and has a good chance of failure. Only in times of plague does It have the power to stalk with impunity.

Famine is more powerful than Death, able to make even the healthy frail. It is nearly as wide-ranging too, able to go wherever there is need or scarcity; although not where there is plenty and contentment. Its hunger is insatiable, and persists indefinitely; yet it cannot end life directly.

War is more powerful still, toppling even the mighty, yet it may exist only where there is conflict. Its instruments should be the most well-known to everyone.

Pride operates on the subtlest scale, its power confined to the hearts of mortals, yet it is the strongest of the Four. Not only will the mighty succumb to Its power, they are more vulnerable to it than the meek.


And in a setting without an afterlife, undeath is a pretty smart path to take for the long-view.
Assuming that there isn't an afterlife, that it's possible to retain your own 'self' as undead, and that it actually isn't a fate worse then death after all. :smalltongue:

[NichG]

Death is a force. You can no more kill death than you could kill gravity. You can fight it for a time, for as long as you can, but it is always there... Watching, waiting...


The difference between Death and gravity is, at least in this setting, Death takes the form of an avatar and that avatar's powers are limited (since it can't just say 'I have the Key' and end the world whenever it wants, it needs the PCs to do the job for it). Once you've thrown in a personality and a physical form, all manner of hijinks are possible.

Convince Death to take his own existence with honeyed words, or to change his overall plans for armageddon; brainwash him; trap him eternally; make him irrelevant; find out why he's personified and interact with that element; beat him up and sit there with a club beating him up for the next ten million years; etc.

And I guess I'd say, don't just overrule those hijinks outright. Because if you do, there's no actual point to Death being personified aside from perhaps a DM power trip. The point of having something in a campaign is so that the PCs can interact with it and, if they're clever, cause it to change.

[Gamgee]

I don't like it at all, I'm not a fan of the gods magically being there to demand you do things for them. If I do have them some of the gods might operate in more overt ways but it will make sense for these gods to do that.

Though even then overt simply means having their clerics go around kicking the **** out of others, not them giving out personal mandates to be followed and personally leading the charge. More like the gods are moving mortal chess pieces angle.

It simply pops out of nowhere and its boring. I wouldn't use this as a GM. I wouldn't like this as a player. It would kill any sense of investment I have in what i did up to this point since magically it was all this guy now suddenly. Maybe if there was some sort of appropriate build up from day one, and even then I think its a ridiculous plot that loses a lot of dramatic tension.

TLDR
Hell no as a GM and a Player.

[Geordnet]

I'm not a fan of the gods magically being there to demand you do things for them.
And how is this that? :smallconfused:



The difference between Death and gravity is, at least in this setting, Death takes the form of an avatar and that avatar's powers are limited (since it can't just say 'I have the Key' and end the world whenever it wants, it needs the PCs to do the job for it). Once you've thrown in a personality and a physical form, all manner of hijinks are possible.
Right, but the principle remains the same. Death can be 'handled', but never removed. It can be fought off indefinitely, but not infinitely. Its nature can't be changed, but the expression of that nature can be.

And whatever "hijinks" you're planning, there's nothing stopping the attempt. :smalltongue:

[TinyHippo]

Look a bit closer, you'll see that this isn't that at all. :smallannoyed:


Look, I don't want to get into an argument with you over something you clearly put a lot of time and effort into and feel is really really cool and all, but to me it feels the same no matter how you try to spin it. It's an opinion, how I feel and not an objective statement of fact. You asked for my thoughts, and if my DM tried to pull that those would be my thoughts.

[Geordnet]

Look, I don't want to get into an argument with you over something you clearly put a lot of time and effort into and feel is really really cool and all, but to me it feels the same no matter how you try to spin it. It's an opinion, how I feel and not an objective statement of fact. You asked for my thoughts, and if my DM tried to pull that those would be my thoughts.
You're entitled to feel however you like about the "X compels you to do Y" plot, but I can objectively state that this is not such a plot. :smallyuk:

Notice that the PCs were already doing what Death "hires" them to do for their own reasons. Death just points them in the right direction. :smallannoyed:

[Jerthanis]

If they don't resent the level of direction they're given, it's not an issue at all. If they do, it's greater motivation to exercise and strengthen their agency as it's tested. True agency isn't gained by whining to the DM that you don't have enough choices when the plot starts singing "She'll be Coming 'Round the Mountains" - at least not compared to blowing up the illusory rails and finding the true game underneath. A lot of games are railroads with an illusion of choice. This one seems to be an open game with an illusion of a railroad.

The convention of having an NPC of such power that his demands cannot be refused come before the PCs and tell them to do something is an old, old RPG convention that has been used since the very beginning of the hobby. I think Keep on the Borderlands has this plot, more or less. It is a plot that many players will recognize and resent. Just changing this powerful NPC to be Death won't make players not notice that it's this same old convention.

Whether it's an open game with an illusion of a railroad or a railroad game that the GM doesn't notice as being as such doesn't really matter because if the game appears to be a railroad, the Players will be annoyed and frustrated by the appearance of a railroad. Those who don't mind will go along with it and apparently be punished for it and those who rebel will probably rebel because they're angry at being railroaded. This seems like a poisonous play situation. The antidote to this potential flaw is by letting them know ahead of time what the game will be about and then they can create characters who would rebel or comply and know the context of this decision.



Just because the players don't best the challenge doesn't mean they couldn't. All it takes is one lucky Goblin that can't roll below an 19 when everyone else can't roll above a 5. He's already said he has plenty of options to get Death involved even if the party's not so unlucky as to be hit with a TPK or near-TPK (Which is far more common, and likewise enough to trigger an encounter with Death).

The reason I mention this aspect as being a flaw is that it seems as if triggering the encounter with Death is the only hope the PCs have of discovering where the item is. As such, the encounter with death is sort of their Hero's Journey call to action (which is actually the part of this plot that most tickles the cockles of my heart). If the story doesn't really start until someone dies, it means that success on the players' part means failure. The circumstances of their encounter, the encounter that kicks off the game's real plot, should not in my opinion be based on essentially randomly getting unlucky, which means it should be a contrived circumstance. If it's contrived, it's either contrived by Death, War, or the DM. Two of those options are probably bad ideas.


Look a bit closer, you'll see that this isn't that at all. :smallannoyed:

I actually think you need to look a little bit closer at it and see that it actually pretty much is.

You have a situation where the PCs' goals overlap in some respect with a godlike NPC and the godlike NPC gives them some aid to indebt them to him and then puts a leash on them complete with copious amounts of stick to go with that little carrot.

Now, running a dark game about slavery, hard choices, and defiance of an implacable foe isn't necessarily going to become a bad game. Far from it. I'm gearing up myself to run a game about the fragility of life right now. However, I'm honest with my players about what I'm going for with this theme, and explaining what I mean by it and how I want to explore it. Essentially this is the core of my advice... give your players reason to suspect it isn't a railroad DMPC power trip style game by dispelling the illusion of the railroad/DMPC power trip ahead of time. Because that's what it looks like it is.

[TinyHippo]

You're entitled to feel however you like about the "X compels you to do Y" plot, but I can objectively state that this is not such a plot. :smallyuk:

Notice that the PCs were already doing what Death "hires" them to do for their own reasons. Death just points them in the right direction. :smallannoyed:

Mmmm, no. It isn't "Your interests coincide with those of a powerful and mysterious NPC who gives you advice, but what's his agenda?" It's "Oh hey look a TPK, how convenient! I just happen to have a major story arch completely written around that very thing! And you're all now alive again and effectively immortal, but only as long as you follow the orders of Death Himself, but it's totally cool cause what he's forcing you to do is following the same quest line you were on before."

[Geordnet]

The convention of having an NPC of such power that his demands cannot be refused come before the PCs and tell them to do something is an old, old RPG convention that has been used since the very beginning of the hobby.
Good thing the PCs can refuse them, then! :smalltongue:


The reason I mention this aspect as being a flaw is that it seems as if triggering the encounter with Death is the only hope the PCs have of discovering where the item is.
It isn't. :smallwink:
I can think of a half-dozen other ways they might find out about it, including several entities more powerful than Death itself.


As such, the encounter with death is sort of their Hero's Journey call to action (which is actually the part of this plot that most tickles the cockles of my heart). If the story doesn't really start until someone dies, it means that success on the players' part means failure.
No, this is like the start of one of the later chapters. And it's only one of several parallel threads. And the alternative is to leave that TPK a TPK, and roll up entirely new characters.


You have a situation where the PCs' goals overlap in some respect with a godlike NPC and the godlike NPC gives them some aid to indebt them to him and then puts a leash on them complete with copious amounts of stick to go with that little carrot.
I don't see how there's "stick" involved here at all. The closest you'd get is the curse, but that isn't a stick by any measure. :smallyuk:

(Stick implies threatening something if one fails to comply with demands. That isn't happening here. The curse happens whatever the PCs do, and they aren't even told about it! Nor is there carrot, as Death gives no further rewards.)



Mmmm, no. It isn't "Your interests coincide with those of a powerful and mysterious NPC who gives you advice, but what's his agenda?" It's "Oh hey look a TPK, how convenient! I just happen to have a major story arch completely written around which is designed for, but does not require that very thing! And you're all now alive again and effectively immortal, but only as long as you follow the orders of Death Himself, but it's totally cool cause what he's forcing you to do is following the same quest line you were on before that's all you know, or will know anytime soon."
I fixed it for you. :smalltongue:

[Kadzar]

The reason I mention this aspect as being a flaw is that it seems as if triggering the encounter with Death is the only hope the PCs have of discovering where the item is. As such, the encounter with death is sort of their Hero's Journey call to action (which is actually the part of this plot that most tickles the cockles of my heart). If the story doesn't really start until someone dies, it means that success on the players' part means failure. The circumstances of their encounter, the encounter that kicks off the game's real plot, should not in my opinion be based on essentially randomly getting unlucky, which means it should be a contrived circumstance. If it's contrived, it's either contrived by Death, War, or the DM. Two of those options are probably bad ideas.
He's right; it is a bit contrived. Unless your Death has a strong sense of fair play or is bound by some rules or something, I think he should orchestrate the TPK. He could spare the life of some nobody the same way he plans to do with the PCs and give that person a plan to bring about the PCs' downfall, which he put together by interrogating their vanquished foes to figure out their tactics and whatnot.

[Geordnet]

He's right; it is a bit contrived. Unless your Death has a strong sense of fair play or is bound by some rules or something, I think he should orchestrate the TPK. He could spare the life of some nobody the same way he plans to do with the PCs and give that person a plan to bring about the PCs' downfall, which he put together by interrogating their vanquished foes to figure out their tactics and whatnot.
Isn't this the opposite of what the others said before? :smallconfused:

Although, I like the idea of Death getting his information from interrogating the dying. :smallbiggrin:

[Scow2]

The convention of having an NPC of such power that his demands cannot be refused come before the PCs and tell them to do something is an old, old RPG convention that has been used since the very beginning of the hobby. I think Keep on the Borderlands has this plot, more or less. It is a plot that many players will recognize and resent. Just changing this powerful NPC to be Death won't make players not notice that it's this same old convention.

Whether it's an open game with an illusion of a railroad or a railroad game that the GM doesn't notice as being as such doesn't really matter because if the game appears to be a railroad, the Players will be annoyed and frustrated by the appearance of a railroad. Those who don't mind will go along with it and apparently be punished for it and those who rebel will probably rebel because they're angry at being railroaded. This seems like a poisonous play situation. The antidote to this potential flaw is by letting them know ahead of time what the game will be about and then they can create characters who would rebel or comply and know the context of this decision.


What better way to motivate the players to go defy Death and carve their own way in the campaign world, and forge the end of the campaign into something truly earned than to face the players with the spectre of their greatest enemy (The railroad). There are few things as satisfying as successfully pulling off a true Henderson - and it's all the better when the GM is secretly in on it, because he's in on it too.

[Water_Bear]

Good thing the PCs can refuse them, then! :smalltongue:

"Do what I want or die" is not actually a choice, regardless of what economists might tell you. Especially when that is presented in a game where refusing means ending the game.


I don't see how there's "stick" involved here at all. The closest you'd get is the curse, but that isn't a stick by any measure. :smallyuk:

(Stick implies threatening something if one fails to comply with demands. That isn't happening here. The curse happens whatever the PCs do, and they aren't even told about it! Nor is there carrot, as Death gives no further rewards.)

The problem here is perception; unless your players are omniscient or read the forum they will have no way of knowing that the Curse isn't a method by death to punish them from disobedience / hurry them up on their quest. Because players being unjustifiably upset is not any better for the game than having them be upset for perfectly valid reasons; on the contrary both are equally bad outcomes.

Add on the fact that you, as the DM, are using it as a stick to keep them on the quest and fight Death, and it becomes a bit of an ugly proposition.

[Geordnet]

"Do what I want or die" is not actually a choice, regardless of what economists might tell you.
Good thing that isn't what's being offered, then. :smallyuk:

The closest is "Do whatever you want, you're going to die and do what I want soon enough..." and even that much isn't "being offered" so much as "conveniently forgotten to mention".


Especially when that is presented in a game where refusing means ending the game.
No, no it does not. I've said it several times before, the PCs can deny Death. :smallsigh:


The problem here is perception; unless your players are omniscient or read the forum they will have no way of knowing that the Curse isn't a method by death to punish them from disobedience / hurry them up on their quest.
Then they won't know anything about it at all, because nobody told them about it. :smallannoyed:


You seem to have it stuck in your mind that this is something it isn't. You seem to think this is a "threatened into service" plot, when in fact the only things that even suggest that it is one are things the players won't know. Your objections to that old cliche are fair and justified, but they don't apply to this case. So, if you continue to get hung up on that aspect, can we forget about the curse and discuss the merits of Death showing up to turn a TPK into a time for exposition, independent of any other part of the plot? :smallconfused:

[Jerthanis]

You seem to have it stuck in your mind that this is something it isn't. You seem to think this is a "threatened into service" plot, when in fact the only things that even suggest that it is one are things the players won't know. Your objections to that old cliche are fair and justified, but they don't apply to this case. So, if you continue to get hung up on that aspect, can we forget about the curse and discuss the merits of Death showing up to turn a TPK into a time for exposition, independent of any other part of the plot? :smallconfused:

You seem not to be realizing it, but it really, REALLY comes off this way. You solicited our opinions as players and GMs, and a good number of us have recognized this plot for being of a commonly used cliche that is particularly annoying from a player perspective and borderline lazy from a GMing perspective. You insist it isn't the case, but we can't see into your mind and everything you say seems only to underscore that our impressions are accurate.

So let's take a step back and you can take us through step by step. The PCs are after a McGuffin and cannot find it. They will eventually be clued into who has it by a more powerful entity. One such powerful entity could be Death, and he would render aid if the PCs come under his power through TPK. So far so good?

First of all: what chance do you think the PCs have of avoiding this TPK? Will you put a monster in their way that you expect them to have no chance against, and escape or triumph will surprise you, or will you orchestrate a totally normal game, and this plot development will only serve as an emergency "In case of TPK, break glass" development to preserve an ongoing game that would otherwise terminate unexpectedly? Will you run a consistently difficult game, where eventually the players' luck will run out and face a TPK? Will you inform the players of the campaign's difficulty ahead of time?

So they stand before Death, technically having died already and he tells them about War and his item, and presumably makes the offer to raise them to continue their quest. Will he cop to the curse if they ask "What's the catch?", do they pass on for real with no wraith conversion if they refuse to promise to go after War? Is Death really interested in having the PCs as allies rather than slaves, or does he truly not care? If he truly doesn't care, why not just Wraith them up at the TPK death? If he needs to act without tipping off the other Horsemen that he's behind it, doesn't turning his pawns into wraiths kind of... totally undermine that goal? If they accept the resurrection, and then don't actively seek to continue the quest for the item and the campaign against War, what happens to them?

Essentially, how do you expect the conversation to go? Because the way I see it, the players are facing down Death, who would never raise someone for no reason. As such, as a player in this situation I would just assume the hook would be pretty strong in this bait. If I interrogate Death on this matter and he insists there's no hook, I would call BS to his face. If he admits to the curse, but explains that it penalizes me only if I don't defy him, I will call him an idiot for setting it up that way instead of the other way around.

I just cannot help feeling the mental image of being rounded up by the guard, dumped in front of a king who says, "Go do X quest, or my guards will kill you". Except in this case the king is invincible, his whim is what kept the PCs alive in the first place, and his guards are flawless detectives... you can run and hide for a time, but you know you cannot evade them forever. Just the mortal human king who can be opposed, his guards fooled, his treasury sacked, his aims betrayed, his enemies conspired with... even that is a frustrating and annoying railroady plot. You're suggesting a King from whom you can merely hide for a while to set them on their quest. If you make this invincible king ACTUALLY merely be running a secret social experiment on the PCs without their knowledge, and to make the quest he rounds them up and orders them to go on happen to be one they actually already were doing doesn't really change that to the PCs, it's the same as if this wasn't the case... they're still put under the power of an NPC, and that is still a frustrating and annoying position to be in.

Again, being a frustrating and annoying position to be in isn't a deal-breaker. I would just appreciate warning that it would be a part of the game I'm going to be playing and assurances that the GM was aware of the giant potential pitfalls that are going to inevitably involved.

The fact that you don't seem to understand why some of us are seeing the setup and curse as a massive leash on player agency is a warning sign to me that you've got a pet plot that you like so much you're blind to its blemishes. And it's a cool plot idea, you shouldn't feel it's not a cool plot idea. It's just that you solicited reactions, and seem completely flabbergasted that the reactions continue to come back again and again to pointing out those blemishes that makes me think you're blind to them.

And with the idea of Death as an exposition machine, regardless the leash... I'm not sure that'd go over that well either. It seems like if the players suffer a TPK and the result is quest advancement and exposition, particularly if the PCs were clueless before the TPK, it will turn into a joke, Player 1: "Aw shoot, we're stumped again, guess I'll slit my wrists and ask Death what he thinks." Player 2, impersonating Death: "Oh no, not you again! You left your keys in your other pants, check the laundry basket."

[Geordnet]

So let's take a step back and you can take us through step by step.
Good, it's this format which I'm best at communicating in.



The PCs are after a McGuffin and cannot find it. They will eventually be clued into who has it by a more powerful entity. One such powerful entity could be Death, and he would render aid if the PCs come under his power through TPK. So far so good?
Pretty much.



First of all: what chance do you think the PCs have of avoiding this TPK? Will you put a monster in their way that you expect them to have no chance against, and escape or triumph will surprise you, or will you orchestrate a totally normal game, and this plot development will only serve as an emergency "In case of TPK, break glass" development to preserve an ongoing game that would otherwise terminate unexpectedly? Will you run a consistently difficult game, where eventually the players' luck will run out and face a TPK? Will you inform the players of the campaign's difficulty ahead of time?
Fairly good, but they only need to slip up once. The latter. Yes, it should be fairly challenging -although not so hard that such total failure at some point is guaranteed. (Yes, I understand this will be a hard balance to strike.) Of course I will.


So they stand before Death, technically having died already and he tells them about War and his item, and presumably makes the offer to raise them to continue their quest. Will he cop to the curse if they ask "What's the catch?", do they pass on for real with no wraith conversion if they refuse to promise to go after War? Is Death really interested in having the PCs as allies rather than slaves, or does he truly not care? If he truly doesn't care, why not just Wraith them up at the TPK death? If he needs to act without tipping off the other Horsemen that he's behind it, doesn't turning his pawns into wraiths kind of... totally undermine that goal? If they accept the resurrection, and then don't actively seek to continue the quest for the item and the campaign against War, what happens to them?
Actually, Death does not make an offer. It just passes them over (this time). The PCs won't really get much of a chance to converse with It, what with literally being on Death's door and all. Death sees all mortals as ultimately belonging to Itself in the end, but occasionally It seeks to use them for Its purposes. Death doesn't turn the PCs into wraiths at the time of TPK for a number of reasons, one of them being the fact that It can't 'wraithify' people by snapping Its boney fingers. Death isn't the only power that is to use wraiths, (which work more like ringwraiths in this setting) but yeah it wouldn't help Its immediate plans... However, Death is a very long-term planner who works in lots of contingencies, and the curse needs to be set far in advance; it's more for after they've successfully stolen the item from War. And if the PCs go do something else, Death waits... If they don't get to it before the curse takes them, then they probably wouldn't ever have gotten around to it. (And Death finds it more convenient to wait for the next group than to try to force this one.)


Essentially, how do you expect the conversation to go? Because the way I see it, the players are facing down Death, who would never raise someone for no reason. As such, as a player in this situation I would just assume the hook would be pretty strong in this bait. If I interrogate Death on this matter and he insists there's no hook, I would call BS to his face. If he admits to the curse, but explains that it penalizes me only if I don't defy him, I will call him an idiot for setting it up that way instead of the other way around.
I expect it to go: "<succinct exposition by Death>" "<PC half-moans a question>" "<Death gives at most half an answer, then departs>" :smalltongue:



they're still put under the power of an NPC, and that is still a frustrating and annoying position to be in.
Well, that's the one thing that I can't change, because it's more or less part of the setting. The PCs are giants among men... But they are not the biggest fish in the sea, by far. What's more, all actions have consequences: there are no "magic mulligans" like Raise Dead or Regeneration. The captain of the guard will not conveniently let you off easy for sake of the plot. Combat -any combat- has a risk of death, even against "easy" opponents. And if the PCs do something to make themselves fall under the power of an NPC, well... (Although, there are few whom are powerful enough to hold them.)



Again, being a frustrating and annoying position to be in isn't a deal-breaker. I would just appreciate warning that it would be a part of the game I'm going to be playing and assurances that the GM was aware of the giant potential pitfalls that are going to inevitably involved.
I intend to make the nature of the campaign fully and unambiguously clear well before its start. So, the players have no excuse to expect anything less than death in a TPK. (Although, they probably didn't expect to meet Death this way... :smallwink:)



The fact that you don't seem to understand why some of us are seeing the setup and curse as a massive leash on player agency is a warning sign to me that you've got a pet plot that you like so much you're blind to its blemishes. And it's a cool plot idea, you shouldn't feel it's not a cool plot idea. It's just that you solicited reactions, and seem completely flabbergasted that the reactions continue to come back again and again to pointing out those blemishes that makes me think you're blind to them.
It's because I think there's a communications issue somewhere, since I've got about a hundred or so details in my head, and naturally it's difficult to get them all out. I understand that this is dangerously close to a classic GMing pitfall, but I'm unconvinced that I've successfully communicated why I think it manages to avoid falling in... :smallfrown:



And with the idea of Death as an exposition machine, regardless the leash... I'm not sure that'd go over that well either. It seems like if the players suffer a TPK and the result is quest advancement and exposition, particularly if the PCs were clueless before the TPK, it will turn into a joke, Player 1: "Aw shoot, we're stumped again, guess I'll slit my wrists and ask Death what he thinks." Player 2, impersonating Death: "Oh no, not you again! You left your keys in your other pants, check the laundry basket."
If they want to, they can go ahead. I'm eager to explore the consequences... :smallamused:

(Oh, and Death isn't going to give out all the answers. Just supply that small but vital piece of information which sets them on the right track.)

[Threadnaught]

As a DM I hate it and I'd feel bad about inflicting a no win situation on my players.
Sure, a "you win for now" situation that eventually leads to "you lose" long after they're done is something I'm heading for right now, but this is something they wanted. Something they asked for, the reason I have to DM and neither of them chose to step up.


As a Player, if my DM was the guy I know locally, I'd punch him in the face. He's railroady now, but I am getting rewarded for doing stuff.

[Geordnet]

As a DM I hate it and I'd feel bad about inflicting a no win situation on my players.
The only way this is a "no win" scenario is in a "you aren't immortal, and will die eventually" sense. Everything beyond that is winnable. :smalltongue:

[Jerthanis]

It's because I think there's a communications issue somewhere, since I've got about a hundred or so details in my head, and naturally it's difficult to get them all out. I understand that this is dangerously close to a classic GMing pitfall, but I'm unconvinced that I've successfully communicated why I think it manages to avoid falling in... :smallfrown:

Essentially your reaction to the accusation of it being the classic leashed by a powerful NPC have fallen into three broad categories:

1.) They don't know the leash exists... yet (sinister laugh). So it's okay, because they don't know it exists. This is just... no.

2.) Death is such a cool character that I don't think it matters. So it's okay, because they won't mind getting jerked around by such a cool dude and if they do mind, it'll be a positive form of encouragement towards defiance and won't inspire irritation or break their investiture. I think that no one will ever like an NPC as much as the GM does, even if it's an iconic archetype like Death. I find grudging irritation being a far more likely reaction than encouraged defiance.

3.) It isn't a leash, because it penalizes them if they don't rebel from him. This is a completely backwards reward/punishment schedule to actually coerce someone, and so it seems kind of nonsensical if this powerful NPC actually wants them to do something for him. It makes him come off as a fool just to circumvent the idea that the PCs have been shanghaied when that's still the impression they'll likely get because getting shanghaied seems like the better plan. It certainly took me a little bit to wrap my head around the fact that he didn't do it to enforce their compliance. In fact, now it seems like he's doing it just 'cuz.

But you do seem to be using all the transparency that I suggested would be necessary, so I really don't have any objections... as long as people aren't going to get surprised or misled by this, it should curb the possible negative results, and probably be a cool game.

[TheDarkSaint]

I have to admit that if I were a player, this would bother me. It would make me feel powerless and that my choices didn't have a whole lot of consequence since I could see the rails pretty easily on what I was "supposed" to do.

You know what I would have been tickled to death with (pun intended)? If, during the game at some point, we had to make a deal with a devil. If, at some point during dangerous combat, a good rping PC cries out to the heavens for mercy and that he'll do anything to live. If, at any time during the game, we had traded a long term 'favor' for a short term goal.


Something like that, where the PLAYERS did something that brought about a deal of unintended consequences, I would have loved. We reaped what we sowed. Death called us forth and said "You guys remember that time you made a deal for that emergency plane shift home...yeah, that was me. It's time to collect"

We would be facing the logical follow through from our actions. That's the important part. We are the actors in the story and the DM is how the surrounds REACT to those characters. The best DM's, in my experience, are reactive instead of proactive.

[Geordnet]

1.) They don't know the leash exists... yet (sinister laugh). So it's okay, because they don't know it exists. This is just... no.
The definition of a "leash" being "a constant reminder and enforcement of the 'railroad'", this by definition makes it not a leash. :smallyuk:

I mean, if I hadn't even mentioned the curse at all, would you have objected so much? Because that's the position the players would be in. By the time the curse becomes relevant, enough time and plot will have passed that it essentially becomes another subplot entirely. One of the "terminal illness which must be cured" variety, which isn't quite as cliche.



2.) Death is such a cool character that I don't think it matters. So it's okay, because they won't mind getting jerked around by such a cool dude and if they do mind, it'll be a positive form of encouragement towards defiance and won't inspire irritation or break their investiture. I think that no one will ever like an NPC as much as the GM does, even if it's an iconic archetype like Death. I find grudging irritation being a far more likely reaction than encouraged defiance.
Your misinterpret my meaning. I personally don't give a **** about the character, to me it'd make no difference if the NPC in question was a random goblin who had the PCs hogtied. And if the players are getting the wrong message, I can and will talk to them OOC about it.



3.) It isn't a leash, because it penalizes them if they don't rebel from him. This is a completely backwards reward/punishment schedule to actually coerce someone, and so it seems kind of nonsensical if this powerful NPC actually wants them to do something for him. It makes him come off as a fool just to circumvent the idea that the PCs have been shanghaied when that's still the impression they'll likely get because getting shanghaied seems like the better plan. It certainly took me a little bit to wrap my head around the fact that he didn't do it to enforce their compliance. In fact, now it seems like he's doing it just 'cuz.
That's because I've got a thousand other details in my head connecting everything I've said to everything I haven't. :smalltongue:
Part of the reason is because Death doesn't care if the PCs do it or the next group of schmucks does, even if he has to wait hundreds of years for them to come along. In this case, the curse acts as a way of cleaning up the evidence, and of providing collateral in the form of powerful servants.

The second reason is that once the PCs have stolen the MacGuffin from War, having them as independent entities is no longer necessarily the most optimal arrangement for Death. War will have noticed Its loss, and the PCs becoming wraiths opens a lot of options for Death. But the process needs to be started early for full effectiveness.

A third (but not final) reason is to increase the odds of the PCs succeeding in their quest, which being under the latent curse will do for them, for several reasons.


So, it's all part of an intricate Xanatos Gambit on Death's part, and you just aren't seeing all the details. :smallcool:


But you do seem to be using all the transparency that I suggested would be necessary, so I really don't have any objections... as long as people aren't going to get surprised or misled by this, it should curb the possible negative results, and probably be a cool game.
I wouldn't have dreamed about trying to mislead my players. :smallamused:




We would be facing the logical follow through from our actions. That's the important part. We are the actors in the story and the DM is how the surrounds REACT to those characters. The best DM's, in my experience, are reactive instead of proactive.
Actually, this entire thing is just one planned reaction to once specific thing that the players might do. So, if the players' action is to get their characters killed, this is what I might do (instead of having them roll up new ones or ending the game). :smallbiggrin:

[Sutremaine]

The more you defend this, the more indefensible it looks. :smallconfused:

[Threadnaught]

The only way this is a "no win" scenario is in a "you aren't immortal, and will die eventually" sense. Everything beyond that is winnable. :smalltongue:

Wasn't there some big war going off in which War was able to enjoy himself by pretty much killing whoever he wants?

On the other hand, Death wants to end existence.

Either way, the players are going to be killed in a contrived encounter designed, not to challenge them, but to outright kill them. Possibly through DM Fiat.
So you can give them a quest and pretty much force them to accept.

The reward you're offering to your players at the end is a choice. Not a great choice either.


Do you want to die this way or that way?

You're planning on subjecting your players to this and you haven't given us much evidence about how your players are all jerks.

I don't like you. My NPCs don't like you either. They have the death sentence in twelve settings.

[Geordnet]

Wasn't there some big war going off in which War was able to enjoy himself by pretty much killing whoever he wants?
No, actually; you're thinking of what Death wants. War surprisingly wants to avoid this (although I haven't decided whether it's because he's nicer than you'd expect, has been strongarmed into doing it, or whatever).



Either way, the players are going to be killed in a contrived encounter designed, not to challenge them, but to outright kill them. Possibly through DM Fiat.
No, I explicitly said that I would not do this. :smallmad:



The reward you're offering to your players at the end is a choice. Not a great choice either.
When one of those options is "death by old age", I don't see the problem. :smalltongue:

[TinyHippo]

The more you defend this, the more indefensible it looks. :smallconfused:

There are few things more amusing than watching someone seeking validation about how awesome their idea is being told unambiguously by a large number of folks that it is not in fact awesome, and then watching the desperate flailing of "No no no, you all just can't see how brilliant I am!"

[Scow2]

There are few things more amusing than watching someone seeking validation about how awesome their idea is being told unambiguously by a large number of folks that it is not in fact awesome, and then watching the desperate flailing of "No no no, you all just can't see how brilliant I am!"

Well... I can easily see where he's coming from. Especially in light of a lot of his other posts. This looks like it could be an awesome campaign idea, and while it's not "Power on a Platter" that I've seen a lot of players get handed, it allows players to explore the extents of their agency, gives them something that wants to constrain it to defy, and also works as an interesting transition from Low-level faffing about to the "Kick the campaign into Paragon Levels", when the heroes stop being mere mortals scratching at the surface of their world, and instead are exposed to and empowered to affect the world's underlying cosmology, in a setting that's designed so that kind of control and knowledge of the world is not to be taken for granted. One of the DM's most important jobs is to be "Satan" - the opponent, while at the same time being God (A DM must be capable of being both, Satan and God).

He is trying to test the party, yet secretly rooting for them. There is more to testing a party of roleplayers than just throwing bigger or more devious monsters at them. Opening up the cosmology, putting them in the center of it in a manner that makes them unique enough to enjoy their agency, but not so unique that it strains Suspension of Disbelief. How many times has it been argued on this board that the Gods need to be rewritten to be able to take advantage of Tippyverse-style cheese so that mortals can't best them, despite being designed so that they CAN be be beaten has been tossed around, on the argument of "If Gods are so limited, why haven't others killed them all yet?"

Hopefully, upon seeing the campaign's rails, the players are inspired to try to jump off them - and dispel the illusion of the rails in the process. If the players' agency is never challenged or questioned, they aren't tested to use and take it.

[Jerthanis]

The definition of a "leash" being "a constant reminder and enforcement of the 'railroad'", this by definition makes it not a leash. :smallyuk:

I mean, if I hadn't even mentioned the curse at all, would you have objected so much? Because that's the position the players would be in. By the time the curse becomes relevant, enough time and plot will have passed that it essentially becomes another subplot entirely. One of the "terminal illness which must be cured" variety, which isn't quite as cliche.

Uh... No, we wouldn't have complained about the curse if we didn't know about it.

We're complaining about the curse being a leash because it is a leash, not because we don't like that we know about it.




Your misinterpret my meaning. I personally don't give a **** about the character, to me it'd make no difference if the NPC in question was a random goblin who had the PCs hogtied. And if the players are getting the wrong message, I can and will talk to them OOC about it.


Trust me, you DO like this NPC. It oozes off of almost every post you make about this topic. You essentially started this thread to show off this NPC, and his plan/offer/whatever, explicitly granting permission for people to use it before the idea was even explained, much less before permission could be asked for.

There's nothing wrong with liking your own plot, I wouldn't run something if I didn't like it. The idea is a cool one, albeit fraught with pitfalls.



That's because I've got a thousand other details in my head connecting everything I've said to everything I haven't. :smalltongue:
Part of the reason is because Death doesn't care if the PCs do it or the next group of schmucks does, even if he has to wait hundreds of years for them to come along. In this case, the curse acts as a way of cleaning up the evidence, and of providing collateral in the form of powerful servants.

The second reason is that once the PCs have stolen the MacGuffin from War, having them as independent entities is no longer necessarily the most optimal arrangement for Death. War will have noticed Its loss, and the PCs becoming wraiths opens a lot of options for Death. But the process needs to be started early for full effectiveness.

A third (but not final) reason is to increase the odds of the PCs succeeding in their quest, which being under the latent curse will do for them, for several reasons.


So, it's all part of an intricate Xanatos Gambit on Death's part, and you just aren't seeing all the details. :smallcool:

The use of the phrase "Xanatos Gambit" underscores one of the reasons I claim you have a situation involving a pet NPC. The definition of Xanatos Gambit involves setting up a situation so that no matter what the PCs do, your NPC wins.

Whether the NPC has sufficient justification to engineer a bizarre late-acting curse to doublecross some schmucks is immaterial from the player point of view... they've got to deal with the actual practical circumstances, and that is that no matter what they do, their invincible benefactor of godlike power will stab them in the back and benefit from doing so. Maybe they can recover and strike back, or figure out some way out of the curse... but materially speaking it doesn't matter what the PCs do, because they're under Death's power now, and all roads lead to Death's favored outcome.



I wouldn't have dreamed about trying to mislead my players. :smallamused:

:smallsigh:

[Threadnaught]

Okay, I may have made a little mistake with War's goals, however.


So, it's all part of an intricate Xanatos Gambit on Death's part, and you just aren't seeing all the details. :smallcool:

Basically Death Wins or You Lose... BTW you also lose if Death Wins.

If Death is any good at planning, then it's the end of reality. That's it.

[Geordnet]

Well... I can easily see where he's coming from. Especially in light of a lot of his other posts. This looks like it could be an awesome campaign idea, and while it's not "Power on a Platter" that I've seen a lot of players get handed, it allows players to explore the extents of their agency, gives them something that wants to constrain it to defy, and also works as an interesting transition from Low-level faffing about to the "Kick the campaign into Paragon Levels", when the heroes stop being mere mortals scratching at the surface of their world, and instead are exposed to and empowered to affect the world's underlying cosmology, in a setting that's designed so that kind of control and knowledge of the world is not to be taken for granted. One of the DM's most important jobs is to be "Satan" - the opponent, while at the same time being God (A DM must be capable of being both, Satan and God).
Thank you for giving me some support in this. Most of the posters so far have just decried this as too close to a GMing pitfall, without discussing how it could be done right. Another voice helps things from falling into the broken record of "you clearly are blind to the pitfall"/"No, I see it"/"That you think you do just proves that you don't". :smalltongue:



Uh... No, we wouldn't have complained about the curse if we didn't know about it.
Which is exactly my point. :smallsigh:


Trust me, you DO like this NPC. It oozes off of almost every post you make about this topic. You essentially started this thread to show off this NPC, and his plan/offer/whatever, explicitly granting permission for people to use it before the idea was even explained, much less before permission could be asked for.

There's nothing wrong with liking your own plot, I wouldn't run something if I didn't like it. The idea is a cool one, albeit fraught with pitfalls.
Alright; it's a fair cop... :smallredface:

I just want to make it perfectly clear that Death isn't that kind of NPC, though. I've read some of the horror stories here on the forums, and know they're only the tip of the iceberg; I definitely don't want to become one myself. :smallyuk:


The use of the phrase "Xanatos Gambit" underscores one of the reasons I claim you have a situation involving a pet NPC. The definition of Xanatos Gambit involves setting up a situation so that no matter what the PCs do, your NPC wins.
No, the definition of a Xanatos Gambit is that no matter what happens, the mastermind doesn't lose.

And that's what this is. It isn't that no matter what, Death comes out on top, it's that no matter what It doesn't come out on bottom. :smalltongue:

And in case you're wondering, Death's final fallback is:
"You may have bested me, mortal, but you are still just that: mortal."

:smallwink:


If Death is any good at planning, then it's the end of reality. That's it.
Good thing Death is neither omniscient nor infallible, and physically cannot comprehend the tenacity and virulence of life. :smallamused:

[Jerthanis]

Thank you for giving me some support in this. Most of the posters so far have just decried this as too close to a GMing pitfall, without discussing how it could be done right. Another voice helps things from falling into the broken record of "you clearly are blind to the pitfall"/"No, I see it"/"That you think you do just proves that you don't". :smalltongue:

No, your responses have NOT indicated that you see it. Par exemple:




Which is exactly my point. :smallsigh:

And my point is that by keeping it secret, you don't make it not exist. The idea that you have that the statement that the leash is secret is at all a positive thing that should be assuaging our confidences that you understand why being leashed is an uncomfortable position for a player to be in is what is destroying our confidence you understand the pitfalls involved. See, because the idea that the PCs will have to deal with the consequences of being leashed, the fact that they don't know about it is NOT a mitigating circumstance, but an aggravating one.

The fact that you would argue that leashing the PCs isn't going to be a big deal because they won't know they're leashed just betrays a misunderstanding of what I have to assume are a typical player's perceptions of this event.




I just want to make it perfectly clear that Death isn't that kind of NPC, though. I've read some of the horror stories here on the forums, and know they're only the tip of the iceberg; I definitely don't want to become one myself. :smallyuk:

The reason you seem to think we're going around in circles is that you express a desire not to perform like classic bad GMs, and then everything else about your post seems to fail to understand WHY classic bad GM styles ARE aggravating. We understand you don't want to run a bad game, no one does. Your reaction to most of the people pointing out pitfalls haven't in fact displayed that you understood and accepted the pitfall's presence, but mostly seem to be saying, "No, that pitfall doesn't exist because of X", which isn't very convincing.



No, the definition of a Xanatos Gambit is that no matter what happens, the mastermind doesn't lose.

And that's what this is. It isn't that no matter what, Death comes out on top, it's that no matter what It doesn't come out on bottom. :smalltongue:

And in case you're wondering, Death's final fallback is:
"You may have bested me, mortal, but you are still just that: mortal."

:smallwink:


You've got an invincible enemy of godlike power who takes the PCs under his power and he cannot be more than inconvenienced. He cannot be beaten. You've done so in a way which would make this character aggravating and antagonizing to the PCs.

You've set a hard cap on the satisfaction they can have out of this situation and have raised greatly the desire for satisfaction. In exchange, you MUST raise the drama to compensate. If the players aren't ready for drama, they're not going to know how to engage in it.

This is why I'm suggesting transparency at every turn.

[TheDarkSaint]

Actually, this entire thing is just one planned reaction to once specific thing that the players might do. So, if the players' action is to get their characters killed, this is what I might do (instead of having them roll up new ones or ending the game). :smallbiggrin:

It doesn't much matter if it might or might not happen. If the sequence goes off, and by how much you are defending the idea, it looks like a good bet, then something that hasn't been foreshadowed or hinted at or had ANYTHING to do with our PC's interactions suddenly comes into play.

Even the smallest hint, such as signs and omens that a percentage of people aren't making it to their deities heaven, would make a logical bridge to what you want to do. Your PC's would say "Oh, so Death is hijacking souls for enslavement, he wants us" and it would have a internal, logical consistency.

The same holds true if they ever had to make any 'deals with the devil'. It's a really good scenario if set up right. It will take lead in time, preparation and planning with foreshadowing and unforeseen consequences.

As it stands, with no previous mentioning of what Death might be up to in dabbling in the mortal realm, it will be a left hook out of nowhere that doesn't make much sense to a PC. And if it doesn't make much sense, you are going to have rebellious PC's on your hands who will make your life miserable.

[Geordnet]

And my point is that by keeping it secret, you don't make it not exist.
http://api.thumbr.it/a5f5d9c7cbe2bb990132d48bdbc531d2/td01lCLK6KuyQknexL6E/www.funnypik.com/thumb/121/120308.jpg/200x200t/biggest-disappointments-of-2011.jpg

You said it yourself that you wouldn't be complaining about the curse if you didn't know about it. I can only assume the same will be true with the players. Therefore, they will not be bugged in the slightest by it until they find out about it.

But the PCs won't find out about it until much later. So late, in fact, that they'll probably have stolen the object from War already. In that case, it will not look at all like a leash since the PCs did what Death wanted already! Rather, it'll look like a double-cross which they should've been expecting from the start. In fact, even if I didn't start the foreshadowing this early the PCs have none to blame but themselves if they're surprised.

And if they notice something's up before then? Well, they might figure out that Death did something to them, but they'll have no way of knowing exactly what. And Death sure isn't going to tell them, even if the PCs flat-out refuse to carry out Its wishes. And at that point... The campaign becomes a quest to defy Death, which is what I wanted anyways! :smallbiggrin:

So you see, either way the result is a good thing. Continue to call it a "leash" if you must, but if you do please explain exactly how it is detrimental to the players' enjoyment.



See, because the idea that the PCs will have to deal with the consequences of being leashed, the fact that they don't know about it is NOT a mitigating circumstance, but an aggravating one.
Pray tell of which "consequences" you are referring? :smallconfused:



You've got an invincible enemy of godlike power who takes the PCs under his power and he cannot be more than inconvenienced. He cannot be beaten. You've done so in a way which would make this character aggravating and antagonizing to the PCs.
...Which makes it all the more fun when said enemy is beaten. :smallcool:



You've set a hard cap on the satisfaction they can have out of this situation and have raised greatly the desire for satisfaction.
Now, this is what I cannot understand in the least. How in any way have I set hard limits on the enjoyment? In fact, if I were a player this would increase my enjoyment, since I'll know that I've earned that happy ending, instead of having it given to me. If there's no limits to achievement, it all becomes little more than empty praise in my mind; but succeeding despite limitations is a heroic feat, indeed. :smallamused:



This is why I'm suggesting transparency at every turn.
Which is a good suggestion, I think. :smalltongue:




It doesn't much matter if it might or might not happen. If the sequence goes off, and by how much you are defending the idea, it looks like a good bet, then something that hasn't been foreshadowed or hinted at or had ANYTHING to do with our PC's interactions suddenly comes into play.
Then come into play it shall; I'm willing to go in whatever direction the players want to. :smalltongue:



Even the smallest hint, such as signs and omens that a percentage of people aren't making it to their deities heaven, would make a logical bridge to what you want to do. Your PC's would say "Oh, so Death is hijacking souls for enslavement, he wants us" and it would have a internal, logical consistency.
Oh, you needn't worry about that. The artifact that they need to steal from War is in fact so woven into the very fibers of the setting that it will have been foreshadowed from the very beginning.



As it stands, with no previous mentioning of what Death might be up to in dabbling in the mortal realm, it will be a left hook out of nowhere that doesn't make much sense to a PC. And if it doesn't make much sense, you are going to have rebellious PC's on your hands who will make your life miserable.
I certainly hope so! :smallbiggrin:

[Threadnaught]

You've got an invincible enemy of godlike power who takes the PCs under his power and he cannot be more than inconvenienced. He cannot be beaten. You've done so in a way which would make this character aggravating and antagonizing to the PCs.

...Which makes it all the more fun when said enemy is beaten. :smallcool:

False, this enemy is incapable of being beaten.


No, the definition of a Xanatos Gambit is that no matter what happens, the mastermind doesn't lose.

And that's what this is. It isn't that no matter what, Death comes out on top, it's that no matter what It doesn't come out on bottom. :smalltongue:

It must be so satisfying after fighting an almost endless horde of evil, to discover that, that lava you threw the ring into, was actually the BBEG in disguise. It's a plot that can bring a smile to any player's face.

[Geordnet]

False, this enemy is incapable of being beaten.
Oh, and I suppose you would know my character better than myself? :smalltongue:

The only thing you can't do to Death is kill It. You most assuredly can beat him, for any given value of "beat".



It must be so satisfying after fighting an almost endless horde of evil, to discover that, that lava you threw the ring into, was actually the BBEG in disguise. It's a plot that can bring a smile to any player's face.
What does that have to do with this plot, though? :smallconfused:

[Scow2]

False, this enemy is incapable of being beaten.



It must be so satisfying after fighting an almost endless horde of evil, to discover that, that lava you threw the ring into, was actually the BBEG in disguise. It's a plot that can bring a smile to any player's face.

Death here isn't any standard villain. He, like War, Pestilence, and Conquest, are part of the cosmos. From what I'm gathering, the campaign shifts from "Defeat the BBEG" (There is none), to "Steer the fate of the universe". In Geordnet's universes, Death and other cosmic forces cannot be neatly categorized as "Enemy/Ally". Sort of like the sun, sky, or earth.

[Jerthanis]

You said it yourself that you wouldn't be complaining about the curse if you didn't know about it. I can only assume the same will be true with the players. Therefore, they will not be bugged in the slightest by it until they find out about it.

Oh my god this is like talking to a wall.

Okay, let me break it down for you. You are having an NPC leash the PCs. This is a circumstance fraught with peril because it can seriously annoy players. You make the claim that it's alright to leash the PCs as long as they don't know about it until it chokes them.

The choking is the thing about being on a leash that makes it bad. The fact that the PCs don't know about it means that not only are they leashed, but they can't do anything to become unleashed. In this way, you do not avoid disempowering the PCs, you are in fact doubly disempowering them.



So you see, either way the result is a good thing. Continue to call it a "leash" if you must, but if you do please explain exactly how it is detrimental to the players' enjoyment.

It is a leash because it is a method through which an antagonist holds power over the PCs, delivers punishment for failure, and enacts a double cross when they no longer serve his purposes.

It is a potential source of annoyance because by not knowing about it, they were prevented from acting upon it preventatively. It was put on them without their consent. It came about as a result of what they probably think of as a failure on their part, reminding them of the feelings of shame and disempowerment that came as a result of that event. It harms their very sense of identity, a more core aspect of that character than any number on their paper. It is in many ways one of the most cruel things possible to do to a PC.

It's hard to believe you can't understand how it could harm a potential player's enjoyment.




Pray tell of which "consequences" you are referring? :smallconfused:

Triggering the curse and becoming a Wraith.



...Which makes it all the more fun when said enemy is beaten. :smallcool:

So far you've presented the enemy being beaten as having the enemy underscore, "I'm eternal and you aren't so I'll always win no matter what Ha Ha." before fading away and then you say "Congradulations Players, you got the good ending."

That isn't really very satisfying.



Now, this is what I cannot understand in the least. How in any way have I set hard limits on the enjoyment? In fact, if I were a player this would increase my enjoyment, since I'll know that I've earned that happy ending, instead of having it given to me. If there's no limits to achievement, it all becomes little more than empty praise in my mind; but succeeding despite limitations is a heroic feat, indeed. :smallamused:

I said you've limited the satisfaction for beating the antagonist, I didn't say Enjoyment. The antagonist has placed them under his power and stabbed them in the back, sold them out, manipulated them, and has reveled in their hardship, and cannot in any meaningful way be hit back. You can delay his plans, but any delay is less than a blink in the eye of an eternal being.

Let me put it another way. For you, the day when Death came to screw with you was the most important day of your life. But for him, it wasn't even Tuesday. It wasn't even the 657x10^9th nanosecond OF Tuesday. For him, it was less than that. In fact, your entire life and the entire scope of your revenge and the delay you manage to insert into his plans is less than that nanosecond of that Tuesday.

So you've made a situation where the PCs are utterly incapable of even significantly inconveniencing their antagonist, and then the antagonist will perform actions that will cause these players to become incensed and enraged with him. There is an enormous gap between what the PCs will want to do to him, and what they are capable of doing to him. This is what I mean when I say there is a pretty limited cap on the satisfaction that comes out of this plot.

If you can bring the drama, you can turn this lack of satisfaction into something good. If you can't, it'll be almost impossible to really enjoy this game very much. Know that this is the situation you are in. You HAVE to bring it. This game concept is Game Mastering on Hard Mode.

[NichG]

Effectively you're walking the line between a cosmic force interacting with the PCs and a cosmic force trolling the PCs. Basically, you can't have your cake and eat it too. Either the cosmic force is personified and can be affected like a person (perhaps a very powerful person, but it still must actually be personified), or its a faceless cosmic force and isn't personified, so fighting it isn't really relevant.

The concern people have right now with this plotline is that its like saying "Well, this is Gravity. You can't kill it, its a cosmic force! But the next time you trip and fall, Gravity will show up to say 'haw haw!' at you and taunt you about how you just got p'owned by Gravity. Cause he's like that." Once you say that Death has a personality and desires things and even seeks out interaction, you must make it clear somehow that he can be hurt in a way that is meaningful to him.

Given what you've said so far, the problem isn't that Death isn't killable. Its that he doesn't actually care about anything, but wants to wreck it all anyhow. So any 'harm' the PCs do to him isn't really harm, its just 'oh hey look, you stopped me from stepping on your sand castle for a bit, good for you *yawn*'. So what I'd do is give Death a love interest. Make it so that there is someone that Death refuses to take, because then Death could not be with them or see them act or whatever motivates Death to love this person. You need to make sure there are targets the PCs can hit to make Death suffer more than Death has made them suffer for the resolution to actually be satisfying. Give them a way to turn Death's eternal nature against him - e.g. "I just took your love away and you will never die and go join her. In one act I have given you an eternity of suffering."

[Threadnaught]

What does that have to do with this plot, though? :smallconfused:

Imagine if as in DM of the Rings, LotR was played as a D&D campaign. Now imagine Sauron had partaken in a Xanatos Gambit which meant he couldn't lose. He'll spend his time in Mount Doom hovering over the real lava, disguised as lava. just in case someone actually makes it that far.

Or at least put a Nazgul there with the Balrog on guard duty. As long as nobody threw his ring into the lava.


Oh, and I suppose you would know my character better than myself? :smalltongue:

I'm just going by your exact words.


The only thing you can't do to Death is kill It. You most assuredly can beat him, for any given value of "beat".

If you're adamant that Death cannot lose, then neither can he be defeated, because to be defeated is to lose.

Death may be immortal and incapable of dying, but you don't have to die to lose.


Given what you've said so far, the problem isn't that Death isn't killable. Its that he doesn't actually care about anything, but wants to wreck it all anyhow. So any 'harm' the PCs do to him isn't really harm, its just 'oh hey look, you stopped me from stepping on your sand castle for a bit, good for you *yawn*'.

There you go, a nice analogy of my issue with the plot as is.


Once you say that Death has a personality and desires things and even seeks out interaction, you must make it clear somehow that he can be hurt in a way that is meaningful to him.

Thank you NichG for finding those precise words. This, Death should be vulnerable to defeat. He should be able to lose. Somehow.


You need to make sure there are targets the PCs can hit to make Death suffer more than Death has made them suffer for the resolution to actually be satisfying.

If Death can actually lose, the best ending can be a satisfying ending.

[batiushkov]

If there are difficulties and possible pitfalls here, which it sounds like all the other posters agree on, including the original poster...is there any way you would consider tweaking the surface of all this in a way that would preserve what you like about it and hope the players would like about it, while lowering some of the risks?

I'm not suggesting actual alternations to your campaign, which I don't understand, of course -- but I mean something of the type "it doesn't appear to be Death or isn't called Death", or the TPK event that triggers the encounter isn't a TPK, but is a player- and plot-success -- with unexpected information revealed. Something like that?

It sounds promising to me, and after reading the thread, it seems like some of the "enraging player" risks could be reduced while allowing the strengths to survive. Are you at all interested in pursuing any such "cosmetic" alterations?

[Geordnet]

Oh my god this is like talking to a wall.

Okay, let me break it down for you. You are having an NPC leash the PCs. This is a circumstance fraught with peril because it can seriously annoy players. You make the claim that it's alright to leash the PCs as long as they don't know about it until it chokes them.

The choking is the thing about being on a leash that makes it bad. The fact that the PCs don't know about it means that not only are they leashed, but they can't do anything to become unleashed. In this way, you do not avoid disempowering the PCs, you are in fact doubly disempowering them.
You claim this is a "leash"? And it is fundamentally wrong? Please explain. :smallconfused:

(No, seriously... You're taking "it's a leash" as sufficient explanation for it being wrong, using your own arbitrary definition of "leash". Until you can substantiate this, I doubt there can be further useful discourse.)



It is a leash because it is a method through which an antagonist holds power over the PCs, delivers punishment for failure, and enacts a double cross when they no longer serve his purposes.
Fair enough, we shall take that as the definition of "leash" for the purposes of this discussion. (Although, personally I'd prefer a less 'loaded' term.)



It is a potential source of annoyance because by not knowing about it, they were prevented from acting upon it preventatively. It was put on them without their consent. It came about as a result of what they probably think of as a failure on their part, reminding them of the feelings of shame and disempowerment that came as a result of that event. It harms their very sense of identity, a more core aspect of that character than any number on their paper. It is in many ways one of the most cruel things possible to do to a PC.
And yet, I fail to see how any of this is wrong in and of itself...



It's hard to believe you can't understand how it could harm a potential player's enjoyment.
I find it hard to believe you can't understand how it might not harm a player's enjoyment; nay, even sharpen it! :smalltongue:



Triggering the curse and becoming a Wraith.
The curse is not "triggered"; it just happens. Think of it more like a disease or a poison than a 'Sword of Damocles'.



So far you've presented the enemy being beaten as having the enemy underscore, "I'm eternal and you aren't so I'll always win no matter what Ha Ha." before fading away and then you say "Congradulations Players, you got the good ending."

That isn't really very satisfying.
Which is why that isn't the best ending; that one has Death limping back into the darkness and spitting at the players between its teeth. :smallwink:



I said you've limited the satisfaction for beating the antagonist, I didn't say Enjoyment. The antagonist has placed them under his power and stabbed them in the back, sold them out, manipulated them, and has reveled in their hardship, and cannot in any meaningful way be hit back. You can delay his plans, but any delay is less than a blink in the eye of an eternal being.
No, actually, the PCs can do more than that. They can permanently foil Death's plans. They can surprise him, and turn the 657x10^9th nanosecond of Tuesday into the most upsetting nanosecond of Its existence. Perhaps even the last nanosecond of Its existence as anything more than the vague concept of the cessation of life. The PCs have the opportunity to ruin millennia of planning... So long that it significant even to Death.

But all of that happens well after this particular plot hook has been played out, which is why I haven't mentioned it yet. :smalltongue:




Effectively you're walking the line between a cosmic force interacting with the PCs and a cosmic force trolling the PCs. Basically, you can't have your cake and eat it too. Either the cosmic force is personified and can be affected like a person (perhaps a very powerful person, but it still must actually be personified), or its a faceless cosmic force and isn't personified, so fighting it isn't really relevant.
Why the false Dichotomy? Is there not room for a personified force which does not think like a human? :smallconfused:



Given what you've said so far, the problem isn't that Death isn't killable. Its that he doesn't actually care about anything, but wants to wreck it all anyhow.
Oh, he certainly cares about things. I never said he didn't. I only ever said he didn't care about the PCs, which is different because, you know, the PCs aren't the center of the universe. :smalltongue:

(But the PCs can get to the center of the universe, and affect the entire universe as well...)



Imagine if as in DM of the Rings, LotR was played as a D&D campaign. Now imagine Sauron had partaken in a Xanatos Gambit which meant he couldn't lose. He'll spend his time in Mount Doom hovering over the real lava, disguised as lava. just in case someone actually makes it that far.
Actually, Sauron did have a Xanatos Gambit in the War of the Ring. Every single option the good guys could have taken would have resulted in Sauron winning... Except for the one possibility he failed to anticipate.

Oh, and even when the One Ring was destroyed, Sauron didn't die and all the other Rings (including the Three) lost their power, and the Elves were forced to leave Middle-Earth forever.

"Xanatos Gambit" just mean there's no way the plotter can "lose" (for his own, arbitrary meaning of "loss") inside the rules as presented. So, you just have to "cheat" somehow. :smallbiggrin:



If you're adamant that Death cannot lose, then neither can he be defeated, because to be defeated is to lose.
Not to Death. He's a good sport like that. :smallcool:



Thank you NichG for finding those precise words. This, Death should be vulnerable to defeat. He should be able to lose. Somehow.
And of course he can! :smalltongue:

There are many different definitions of "win" and "lose", most of which are subjective. For instance, let's say you're up against a gorilla in an arm-wrestling contest. There's absolutely no way you can defeat her, but that doesn't mean you can't win. For instance, coming within an inch of victory instead of being squashed like a bug can be "winning" it, as can shooting the gorilla with a tranquilizer dart, challenging her to a rigged "cups and balls" game instead, or outright refusing the challenge and walking away. Being unable to "achieve victory" doesn't mean unable to "win", by any stretch.

And by the same measure, the definition of "lose" varies too. One can fail a little (or even a lot) without counting it as a "loss", even if others (the PCs in this case) consider one to have lost.

(By the way, take care that the precise definitions of "lose" and "defeat" might get switched around a bit... A misunderstanding will only complicate things further. :smallyuk:)




I'm not suggesting actual alternations to your campaign, which I don't understand, of course -- but I mean something of the type "it doesn't appear to be Death or isn't called Death", or the TPK event that triggers the encounter isn't a TPK, but is a player- and plot-success -- with unexpected information revealed. Something like that?
There were several other options for if a TPK never occurred if that's what you mean, but I don't know what you mean by "it doesn't appear to be Death or isn't called Death".



It sounds promising to me, and after reading the thread, it seems like some of the "enraging player" risks could be reduced while allowing the strengths to survive. Are you at all interested in pursuing any such "cosmetic" alterations?
It depends on what you mean. I'm open to suggestions.

[batiushkov]

I meant "the NPC that you call Death" is not presented as Death, at least at first. Like, through part of the campaign the PCs come to suspect that this IS Death? And then after the TPK or something it's revealed that it was in fact Death -- giving the players satisfaction, and then continuing in the vein you originally proposed.

I don't know. I mean, I don't have the tweaks ready to offer. I just was asking if you would be open to that sort of tweak.

[NichG]

Why the false Dichotomy? Is there not room for a personified force which does not think like a human? :smallconfused:


Giving a cosmic force a body has to serve a dramatic purpose other than 'I think its cool to have Death be an NPC'. Generally speaking that purpose is that you take something implacable and absolute and then give it complexity, vulnerability, irrationality, and the other human foibles. That gives rise to a number of stories and possibilities of drama. If you have something that lacks any of the human flaws but has a body, its a dead end at best and the DM trolling the PCs at worst.



Oh, he certainly cares about things. I never said he didn't. I only ever said he didn't care about the PCs, which is different because, you know, the PCs aren't the center of the universe. :smalltongue:


You need to be more specific.



Not to Death. He's a good sport like that. :smallcool:


This kind of response is part of your problem here. You're building an NPC who you think is awesome, and you're inherently resistant to things that disrupt the NPC's 'awesome' veneer.

[Geordnet]

I meant "the NPC that you call Death" is not presented as Death, at least at first. Like, through part of the campaign the PCs come to suspect that this IS Death? And then after the TPK or something it's revealed that it was in fact Death -- giving the players satisfaction, and then continuing in the vein you originally proposed.
You know, it would help me establish Death as an "Illuminati/shadow manipulator" archetype if the PCs keep noticing him in the darkness... Yeah, I like this idea. It'll let me offload some concepts which weren't working for another character, too.

The trick is to figure out how to do this, though... Death does not strike bargains with mortals, it's Pride who does all the Faustian stuff. Death merely gives and takes (or attempts to take) according to Its own designs. Usually this takes the form of supplying information -whether solicited or not, the full truth or partial. Death would be the type to always tell the truth, but tell it in such a way to nudge the listener in a certain direction.


Hm... What if I had him appear as the adviser of a King Arthur-like figure? The King is a good King, and didn't ask for Death to advise him, but he can't get rid of Death's specter and so has come to grudgingly accept/ignore it. There's probably a charm keeping the rest of the King's court from noticing/recognizing/remembering Death, too. (The PCs are immune, for "fate"ish reasons.) Perhaps the King has allies whom might be able to relieve him of this haunting, but is too arrogant to admit he has a problem. (And Death is all too willing to perpetuate this arrangement.) Yeah, I really like this idea. :smallbiggrin:



Giving a cosmic force a body has to serve a dramatic purpose other than 'I think its cool to have Death be an NPC'.
I never said I didn't have more purpose for him beyond this singular event, which is just one adventure in a larger campaign. :smalltongue:


Generally speaking that purpose is that you take something implacable and absolute and then give it complexity, vulnerability, irrationality, and the other human foibles. That gives rise to a number of stories and possibilities of drama. If you have something that lacks any of the human flaws but has a body, its a dead end at best and the DM trolling the PCs at worst.
Need I give Death human flaws though? Would not inhuman ones be more interesting, exploring the interaction of the human and alien? :smallconfused:

Although, I shall admit that I can never truly make Death inhuman (being human myself). Nevertheless, I can get close.


Oh, and Drama isn't the only thing to a story. Especially with Fantasy. Tolkien wrote an essay that talked about this, called "On Fairy-Stories".


You need to be more specific.
I mean to say that Death is absolutely ambivalent when it comes to people. Death sees people as objects; tools and obstacles. Death treats people the way people treat silverware, or furniture. Death holds neither grudges nor favors. Death's is the ultimate objective viewpoint.

And therefore, Death has no reason at all to "enforce his will". (Death doesn't really have a will, in that sense.) This is true even with the PCs: although they actually hold power over Death, Death sees them no differently than a fire or a bomb -hazards, but controllable or avoidable when one keeps a level head.


This kind of response is part of your problem here. You're building an NPC who you think is awesome, and you're inherently resistant to things that disrupt the NPC's 'awesome' veneer.
And is that a bad thing in and of itself? I don't think so, it just needs to be approached in the right way.

[batiushkov]

See, I would have trouble executing what you just proposed (but then, I'm not DMing, so no problem). I was thinking something even a little more pedestrian -- in the "Advisor" version you suggested (which I like), maybe I would have thought about having the "Death-Advisor" NPC not be known as Death by anyone, but have some of the qualities you (you personally) want Death to have -- manipulative, kindly, helpful, mysterious, cool, collected -- whatever. And then through some combination of mood-setting, NPC character development, and maybe even he accompanies them on a short adventure? -- the PCs begin to think that....naah, he's just a guy, just a mid-level cleric who seems powerful to us...

And then in the TPK situation, the characters come to in a dreamlike version of his quarters. What's this? Etc...could allow for the feeling of a twist / surprise / half-expected surprise, while getting the players in deeper with someone they were already working with, enriching the mesh of reasons they work with / for him, and moving into the stuff you described (in whatever form).

That's not what I think you should do -- it's just what I thought about. I like the notion that the fact that this is Death is not a poof-reveal but a mystery that slowly reveals itself as the PCs get to know him.

[Geordnet]

See, I would have trouble executing what you just proposed (but then, I'm not DMing, so no problem).
The trick here would be giving him "screen time" to speak in before the PCs confront the King about him...

Any suggestions? :smalltongue:


I was thinking something even a little more pedestrian -- in the "Advisor" version you suggested (which I like), maybe I would have thought about having the "Death-Advisor" NPC not be known as Death by anyone, but have some of the qualities you (you personally) want Death to have -- manipulative, kindly, helpful, mysterious, cool, collected -- whatever. And then through some combination of mood-setting, NPC character development, and maybe even he accompanies them on a short adventure? -- the PCs begin to think that....naah, he's just a guy, just a mid-level cleric who seems powerful to us...
Actually... That sounds like it'd be better for introducing War. :smallcool:

(Although, Death will probably be using an alias at least.)

[NichG]

I never said I didn't have more purpose for him beyond this singular event, which is just one adventure in a larger campaign. :smalltongue:


Not a way in which you're going to use the NPC as DM. A conceptual or story purpose. A meaning to the character and its interactions.



Need I give Death human flaws though? Would not inhuman ones be more interesting, exploring the interaction of the human and alien? :smallconfused:


Inhuman tends to be less interesting actually. The problem is that the more inhuman it gets, the less people viscerally understand it or its causality. Which means that it starts to become a 'just so' story rather than one in which actions have meaning or consequence.



I mean to say that Death is absolutely ambivalent when it comes to people. Death sees people as objects; tools and obstacles. Death treats people the way people treat silverware, or furniture. Death holds neither grudges nor favors. Death's is the ultimate objective viewpoint.


Then I don't think it makes sense for Death to be embodied at all. Also, you just basically said 'he has a weakness - its that he has no weakness'. That doesn't work.



And therefore, Death has no reason at all to "enforce his will". (Death doesn't really have a will, in that sense.) This is true even with the PCs: although they actually hold power over Death, Death sees them no differently than a fire or a bomb -hazards, but controllable or avoidable when one keeps a level head.


Especially if he doesn't even have a will.



And is that a bad thing in and of itself? I don't think so, it just needs to be approached in the right way.

This is absolutely a bad thing in and of itself. There's no right way to approach this frankly. Its basically DM self-indulgence - you're putting an element into the campaign that basically you like but has no real redeeming factor for the players.

[Geordnet]

Not a way in which you're going to use the NPC as DM. A conceptual or story purpose. A meaning to the character and its interactions.
Yep, I've got more of those too. :smalltongue:


Inhuman tends to be less interesting actually. The problem is that the more inhuman it gets, the less people viscerally understand it or its causality. Which means that it starts to become a 'just so' story rather than one in which actions have meaning or consequence.
From my point of view, you've got it backwards... Wouldn't a lack of understanding make it more interesting to learn about? And I don't see how it affects "meaning or consequence" one way or the other: a consistent and logical system is a consistent and logical system, period. What more is there to consequence (let alone meaning) than that? :smallconfused:


Then I don't think it makes sense for Death to be embodied at all.
Why not? No, really: what reason is there for him to not be embodied?


Also, you just basically said 'he has a weakness - its that he has no weakness'. That doesn't work.
Yeah, because I didn't say that. I've got no idea where you're getting this from; I wasn't talking about "weaknesses" at all.


Especially if he doesn't even have a will.
Again, why not? Seriously, even if it flies in the face of our most basic assumptions... How is that in any way a bad thing?

(Especially when this sort of thing is bread-and-butter for lots of sci-fi classics involving robots.)


This is absolutely a bad thing in and of itself. There's no right way to approach this frankly.
Unsubstantiated tautologies and unfounded absolutes aren't really valid arguments... :smallannoyed:


Its basically DM self-indulgence - you're putting an element into the campaign that basically you like but has no real redeeming factor for the players.
You're going to have to do better than that. Putting something that I like in my campaign isn't a bad thing, even if it doesn't strictly benefit the players. As long as it isn't significantly detrimental to the players' fun, a GM is justified in putting whatever the **** he wants in his world. He needs to have fun too. :smallyuk:

[Scow2]

Some people in this thread really don't get the point or nature of cosmic forces. They have motivations and goals integral to their being, but they are NOT human, even if they have anthropomorphic personifications.

I'd hate to play in any campaign run by NichG if he has such narrow views of the cosmos and humanity. (I love tripping players up with fiends and other outsiders)

[NichG]

Some people in this thread really don't get the point or nature of cosmic forces. They have motivations and goals integral to their being, but they are NOT human, even if they have anthropomorphic personifications.

I'd hate to play in any campaign run by NichG if he has such narrow views of the cosmos and humanity. (I love tripping players up with fiends and other outsiders)

Fiends and outsiders are extremely human in their inhumanity. They're humans reduced to one drive and taken to an extreme. Instead of a well-adjusted person, you have a being who is defined by their Greed. Or their Pride. Or their Sloth.

This is why inevitables are fairly dull. They don't really have any motivations other than 'I do what I am supposed to do'. They work as footsoldiers, but not really commanders and not really central characters.

The most interesting things are at the intersection of things that we can relate to with things we can't. Making something that is 'truly' inhuman is basically mental masturbation; no one will get it but the GM.

Above all, elements of the campaign exist to be interacted with by the players. That interaction must be two-way otherwise its just the GM telling their story. To say 'the cosmic force doesn't budge because its a cosmic force' is to say 'this was never actually a thing to interact with, but I wanted the ego rush of playing an invincible character'. Its fine philosophically, but its bad game design.

[Scow2]

Fiends and outsiders are extremely human in their inhumanity. They're humans reduced to one drive and taken to an extreme. Instead of a well-adjusted person, you have a being who is defined by their Greed. Or their Pride. Or their Sloth.

This is why inevitables are fairly dull. They don't really have any motivations other than 'I do what I am supposed to do'. They work as footsoldiers, but not really commanders and not really central characters.

The most interesting things are at the intersection of things that we can relate to with things we can't. Making something that is 'truly' inhuman is basically mental masturbation; no one will get it but the GM.

Above all, elements of the campaign exist to be interacted with by the players. That interaction must be two-way otherwise its just the GM telling their story. To say 'the cosmic force doesn't budge because its a cosmic force' is to say 'this was never actually a thing to interact with, but I wanted the ego rush of playing an invincible character'. Its fine philosophically, but its bad game design.You're just full of fallacies today. Just because something doesn't budge doesn't mean it's not interactive. It just doesn't interact in the same way - an obstacle, not a widget.

[NichG]

From my point of view, you've got it backwards... Wouldn't a lack of understanding make it more interesting to learn about? And I don't see how it affects "meaning or consequence" one way or the other: a consistent and logical system is a consistent and logical system, period. What more is there to consequence (let alone meaning) than that? :smallconfused:

'This creature always lies except every third sentence' is a logically consistent system, but it makes for a bad personality for an NPC because it doesn't come from either rational or emotional behavior, its a 'just so' fact about that creature. You can 'solve the puzzle' and understand the pattern, but at the end of the day you don't actually understand anything deeper.



Why not? No, really: what reason is there for him to not be embodied?


Powerful NPC, PC resentment, etc, etc. Things people have told you time and again on this thread that you've just ignored.



Yeah, because I didn't say that. I've got no idea where you're getting this from; I wasn't talking about "weaknesses" at all.


I was asking you to be more specific about Death's weaknesses and your response was to say how Death was strong and ignore the question about weaknesses.



Again, why not? Seriously, even if it flies in the face of our most basic assumptions... How is that in any way a bad thing?


Basically, its an empty move. Death has a body! That's useful information, right? You can figure things out based on that fact, right? Nope, just the GM screwing around, it doesn't mean anything. You can't figure out anything based on it. It doesn't open up any new plots or ideas, not really. Its effectively equivalent to having a statue of a deity and a voice from the heavens, except the lips move. And really, if you're doing that, the statue doesn't make a difference - the voice from the heavens is the 'content'.



(Especially when this sort of thing is bread-and-butter for lots of sci-fi classics involving robots.)


GlaDos is more memorable than, say, the robot from Forbidden Planet. Even the robot from Lost in Space has a personality - its a protector, a parental figure of sorts. Also it bears repeating that fiction and movies have different constraints than a tabletop game.



Unsubstantiated tautologies and unfounded absolutes aren't really valid arguments... :smallannoyed:

You're going to have to do better than that. Putting something that I like in my campaign isn't a bad thing, even if it doesn't strictly benefit the players. As long as it isn't significantly detrimental to the players' fun, a GM is justified in putting whatever the **** he wants in his world. He needs to have fun too. :smallyuk:


Then let me put it this way. Multiple people have told you that it would be significantly detrimental to their fun. I initially agreed that this plot could be done and now do not think that you could pull it off in a way I would find fun given your responses to criticisms of the idea and refusal to actually accept statements from people 'I would not enjoy this'.

[Scow2]

'This creature always lies except every third sentence' is a logically consistent system, but it makes for a bad personality for an NPC because it doesn't come from either rational or emotional behavior, its a 'just so' fact about that creature. You can 'solve the puzzle' and understand the pattern, but at the end of the day you don't actually understand anything deeper.



Powerful NPC, PC resentment, etc, etc. Things people have told you time and again on this thread that you've just ignored.



I was asking you to be more specific about Death's weaknesses and your response was to say how Death was strong and ignore the question about weaknesses.



Basically, its an empty move. Death has a body! That's useful information, right? You can figure things out based on that fact, right? Nope, just the GM screwing around, it doesn't mean anything. You can't figure out anything based on it. It doesn't open up any new plots or ideas, not really. Its effectively equivalent to having a statue of a deity and a voice from the heavens, except the lips move. And really, if you're doing that, the statue doesn't make a difference - the voice from the heavens is the 'content'.



GlaDos is more memorable than, say, the robot from Forbidden Planet. Even the robot from Lost in Space has a personality - its a protector, a parental figure of sorts. Also it bears repeating that fiction and movies have different constraints than a tabletop game.




Then let me put it this way. Multiple people have told you that it would be significantly detrimental to their fun. I initially agreed that this plot could be done and now do not think that you could pull it off in a way I would find fun given your responses to criticisms of the idea and refusal to actually accept statements from people 'I would not enjoy this'.
Anthropomorphic personification and physical location/avatar does not a person make. Death has a form he can interact directly with mortals in. He is the death, decay, and end of all things. Anything contrary to that is contrary to him. He still seeks out agents, and speaks to those he collects (Though, because those people are dead, nobody knows that the Reaper is 'real', outside of extreme circumstances)

He has a seemingly unyielding vector - but his plans can be thwarted by setting him back, or moving his target destination out of the way. He only has minimal ability to change. It's an uphill battle to defy him, but that angle is the shallowest of the four. Just don't stop walking, and you gain advantage over him.

[Geordnet]

You can 'solve the puzzle' and understand the pattern, but at the end of the day you don't actually understand anything deeper.
Um, I think you just contradicted yourself there...


Powerful NPC
Not bad in and of itself.


PC resentment
Not necessarily a bad thing either; it can be handled right, like if they later get a chance for revenge.


Things people have told you time and again on this thread that you've just ignored.
Because nobody substantiated exactly how and why they would come up in a bad way.


I was asking you to be more specific about Death's weaknesses and your response was to say how Death was strong and ignore the question about weaknesses.
Um, you were? :smallconfused:

Oh, he certainly cares about things. I never said he didn't. I only ever said he didn't care about the PCs, which is different because, you know, the PCs aren't the center of the universe. :smalltongue:

You need to be more specific.
It wasn't obvious to me! :smalltongue:


Basically, its an empty move. Death has a body! That's useful information, right? You can figure things out based on that fact, right? Nope, just the GM screwing around, it doesn't mean anything. You can't figure out anything based on it. It doesn't open up any new plots or ideas, not really.
Okay, that's flat-out unsubstantiated bull****. :smallmad:


GlaDos is more memorable than, say, the robot from Forbidden Planet. Even the robot from Lost in Space has a personality - its a protector, a parental figure of sorts.
I was thinking Issac Asimov, not space opera. :smallsigh:


Then let me put it this way. Multiple people have told you that it would be significantly detrimental to their fun.
Consensus is not truth. Especially when I know my own communications skills are poor enough that it's probably due to a misunderstanding. (And when said posts only confirm such suspicions.)


I initially agreed that this plot could be done and now do not think that you could pull it off in a way I would find fun given your responses to criticisms of the idea and refusal to actually accept statements from people 'I would not enjoy this'.
You misunderstand. I wasn't refusing to accept that they wouldn't like it; that's a subjective thing. I only objected to their assessment that it was something that it was not. (That is to say, that it was a "NPC strongarms the PCs into doing something" plot. And before you say it is, prove it.)

[NichG]

Um, you were? :smallconfused:


As per the following sequence:


Given what you've said so far, the problem isn't that Death isn't killable. Its that he doesn't actually care about anything, but wants to wreck it all anyhow. So any 'harm' the PCs do to him isn't really harm, its just 'oh hey look, you stopped me from stepping on your sand castle for a bit, good for you *yawn*'.



Oh, he certainly cares about things. I never said he didn't. I only ever said he didn't care about the PCs, which is different because, you know, the PCs aren't the center of the universe. :smalltongue:



You need to be more specific.



I mean to say that Death is absolutely ambivalent when it comes to people. Death sees people as objects; tools and obstacles. Death treats people the way people treat silverware, or furniture. Death holds neither grudges nor favors. Death's is the ultimate objective viewpoint.


What I meant by 'you need to be more specific' is 'you need to say what Death cares about, what will hurt Death'. Your response was basically 'he doesn't care about people'.

[Geordnet]

What I meant by 'you need to be more specific' is 'you need to say what Death cares about, what will hurt Death'. Your response was basically 'he doesn't care about people'.
Well, be more specific next time. :smalltongue:

In any case, Death has plans which can be foiled. Is that good enough for you?

[NichG]

Well, be more specific next time. :smalltongue:

In any case, Death has plans which can be foiled. Is that good enough for you?

No, actually. What I'm saying is more or less 'the more the players hate a villain, the more visceral the win must be'. When you use a 'hated villain' type, one who takes villainous deeds and then makes them personal, then you're tapping into the catharsis achieved when the players finally exact revenge on them. This is more than just 'foiling plans' - its making the villain suffer and making the villain show their suffering, in equal measure to all the times that the villain made them suffer. The 'show their suffering' part is important. Thats how the players know that what they're doing works.

This is in contrast to a more impersonal villain or threat where its more like 'X needs to be stopped!' and foiling the plans is sufficient. This is the kind of villain where the PCs never actually hate their enemy, but have fun in whatever hijinks ensue trying to stop them. This is the realm of classy villains 'You win this round, so I shall take my leave', force-of-nature types (there's a giant wolf about to eat the moon - it must be stopped!), friend-turned-enemy-by-kismet types, and the like. Here, its sufficient to foil the plans (and possibly even redeem the villain) because they've only be villainous in the abstract sense of 'what they are doing is dangerous' sense, not the 'I killed your son and kicked your puppy' sense.

So, why is your 'Death' a 'hated' type rather than a 'X needs to be stopped' type? Normally Death would fall into the impersonal force of nature category, but you've done a few things that pushes this 'Death' into 'hated'. This isn't bad, but it does require certain things of the conclusion. Death has to be able to suffer on a level deeper than 'foiled plans', must display that suffering, etc. When 'foiled plans' is merely 'foiled plans for 50 years' its even worse.

When you have Death personally show up and force the PCs to execute his plans thats the big one. Contrast your 'Death is using us to end the world' with the simpler 'Death is trying to end the world' plotline. The former is more personal than the latter.

The sequence 'you nearly die, Death shows up, says do X, goes away' isn't quite enough. But add to that the wraith curse which is eventually discovered, or any form of reminder of 'hey, do what I said or I will collect you' and you've got the beginnings of a hated villain. In addition, the 'cooler' the villain behaves, the more the go towards 'hated' (whereas the 'classier' they behave, the more they go towards 'X must be stopped'). Thats because of the insult-to-injury factor of someone who has power over the PCs also displaying arrogance or disdain, which gets a sort of 'I will prove that you are going to care what I do and think' challenge going.

So, to summarize:
- 'Hated' villains must suffer in the conclusion, whereas impersonal 'must be stopped' villains can be stopped, stalled, redeemed, what have you.
- Actions which make the PCs act against their principles, remove PC agency, directly cause PC suffering all tend to push a villain into 'hated' rather than impersonal.
- 'Coolness', arrogance, disdain, and the like tend to push a villain into 'hated' rather than impersonal.

[Geordnet]

What I'm saying is more or less 'the more the players hate a villain, the more visceral the win must be'.
Hm... Well, I guess we're finally getting somewhere productive at least. :smalltongue:

I'll admit I hadn't given thought to this. I still wouldn't see it as much of a problem myself, but I'm probably the exception in that regard. The players are likely to agree with you on some level.

I think the one thing that would save my idea is the fact that Death as I'm imagining It is the ultimate "impersonal" personality. No relationship is ever personal from Death's side, including that with the PCs. (At least, at first: I could have that start to crack at some point, just a little... Probably not enough for catharsis, though.) In other words, Death is intended to be much more "classy" than "cool".

So, I guess the key is to make sure Death does things in such a way that it's hard for the players to misinterpret them as personal.



So, why is your 'Death' a 'hated' type rather than a 'X needs to be stopped' type?
That's the thing, I don't see how Death is a "hated"-type villain as opposed to an "X needs to be stopped" one. Or at least, that was not the intent. In fact, the mental image I have for the character and Its actions in my head is rather solidly in the latter category by your own definition.


I think the problem lies in one misinterpretation:


When you have Death personally show up and force the PCs to execute his plans thats the big one.
You see, this is why I've been arguing this whole time. This does not adequately describe my plot hook (which is indeed little more than a hook) at all, because it makes it sound like something it isn't.

To demonstrate, let's look at what happens from the PCs' point of view:

Mysterious hooded character (possibly) seen in shadows repeatedly, apparently fulfilling some "Illuminatus"-type role.
Said character shows up, saves the party from certain death and supplies them with information vital to their quest; making neither requests nor demands of the PCs.
The players may become suspicious that they aren't dying. (This won't be as obvious as surviving -15hp, though; the system should preferably be such that it could be a coincidence.)
PCs eventually figure out the price for this immortality, as they discover the curse.


Of all of these, only #4 has the potential to make Death a "hated" character. So, what needs to be tweaked in order to "fix" it, such that it is not so easily misinterpreted? :smallconfused:



Hm... I'd probably get rid of the curse before adjusting anything else. It doesn't really help the story at all, doing nothing but attract flack for it. It was a rather last-minute addition anyways. (I should have known I'd regret it... :smallyuk:)


Oh, and by the way:
All this talk about "classy" vs. "cool" characters has given me a really good idea for Famine's personality.

I'll make him an expy of Black Hat Guy from xkcd. :smallbiggrin:

[Threadnaught]

No, actually.

Couldn't have put it better myself.


Geordnet, you're basically telling us that you're going to push your PCs so the hate and anger builds, then if/when they win. They should be grateful for whatever crumbs you decide to toss them.

The best thing you say you're going to give them is where you'll tell your players.


Congratulations guys, you win. Except the bad guy wins instead because I like him better than you.

Isn't this villain great?

[Geordnet]

Geordnet, you're basically telling us that you're going to push your PCs so the hate and anger builds, then if/when they win.

Congratulations guys, you win. Except the bad guy wins instead because I like him better than you.

Isn't this villain great?
Neither is my intent. :smallannoyed:

To clarify:
I'm not looking for hate and anger, although I'm willing to take whatever reaction the players have and run with it. If these are so troublesome though, I'd rather avoid them. The bad guy only wins in the end from a certain point of view, just as from a certain point of view the players defeat him merely by not dying. "Win", "lose", "victory", "defeat", et cetera are very much the weasel words here.

[Water_Bear]

I'm not looking for hate and anger, although I'm willing to take whatever reaction the players have and run with it. If these are so troublesome though, I'd rather avoid them. The bad guy only wins in the end from a certain point of view, just as from a certain point of view the players defeat him merely by not dying. "Win", "lose", "victory", "defeat", et cetera are very much the weasel words here.

That's the problem though; "from a certain point of view" is a tricky animal.

For example, look at how we deal with children. Some people raise their kids with an "everyone is a winner" philosophy where participation is always worth a Gold Star no matter how well you do. Closer to the other end of the spectrum, when I was a kid and I got 2nd place in something or an A- in a class, my parents would always tell me not to feel too bad about it because they knew I could do better and I just needed to work harder next time. Most people fall somewhere in the middle; you can "win" with a bronze medal or a B but not making it to that level is still a loss.

The problem is that your definition of "winning" falls pretty severely on the Gold Star side; everyone who doesn't die by the end of the adventure is a winner, even if their enemy is unvanquished and their universe destroyed. I would suggest giving a little more ground on the endings; if the players get the ability to say, choose between kicking Death's ass or stopping armageddon, then they can feel like they've won even though they haven't gotten everything they wanted. Then leave your current "win" as the Bad Ending and you're solid.

[Threadnaught]

if the players get the ability to say, choose between kicking Death's ass or stopping armageddon, then they can feel like they've won even though they haven't gotten everything they wanted. Then leave your current "win" as the Bad Ending and you're solid.

I'd enjoy that ending. That I'd like to play. :smallamused:

[NichG]

I think the one thing that would save my idea is the fact that Death as I'm imagining It is the ultimate "impersonal" personality. No relationship is ever personal from Death's side, including that with the PCs. (At least, at first: I could have that start to crack at some point, just a little... Probably not enough for catharsis, though.) In other words, Death is intended to be much more "classy" than "cool".


I don't think that really saves the idea. As I said, simultaneously using the PCs and appearing not to care either way about them shows up as disdain. I feel that 'make a deal with PCs on Deaths Door' is inconsistent with 'ultimately impersonal'. For Death to seek out specific people and make an exception for them strikes me as fundamentally 'personal'.



That's the thing, I don't see how Death is a "hated"-type villain as opposed to an "X needs to be stopped" one. Or at least, that was not the intent. In fact, the mental image I have for the character and Its actions in my head is rather solidly in the latter category by your own definition.

...

To demonstrate, let's look at what happens from the PCs' point of view:

Mysterious hooded character (possibly) seen in shadows repeatedly, apparently fulfilling some "Illuminatus"-type role.
Said character shows up, saves the party from certain death and supplies them with information vital to their quest; making neither requests nor demands of the PCs.
The players may become suspicious that they aren't dying. (This won't be as obvious as surviving -15hp, though; the system should preferably be such that it could be a coincidence.)
PCs eventually figure out the price for this immortality, as they discover the curse.


Of all of these, only #4 has the potential to make Death a "hated" character. So, what needs to be tweaked in order to "fix" it, such that it is not so easily misinterpreted? :smallconfused:


The curse is part of it. The other part is the fact that Death wants to use them to accomplish something that they would find abhorrent if they knew the truth. Basically in my example in the previous post its the difference between "I am going to kill people and you are going to unwittingly help me do it." and "I am going to kill people." Making the PCs the tools of Death's plan pushes towards "hated".

If on the other hand, the PCs found that, say, their enemies just kept not staying dead even after ridiculous death scenes (dropping from a bridge 200ft onto sharp rocks kinds of things) and found out eventually that Death had made this deal with their enemies, I think that Death would be a lot less 'hated' and a lot more 'just needs to be stopped'.

Edit: Also, Water_Bear's suggested variation on the ending is a very smart way to do it and a very good example of how to leverage a 'hated' villain for drama.

[Scow2]

That's the problem though; "from a certain point of view" is a tricky animal.

For example, look at how we deal with children. Some people raise their kids with an "everyone is a winner" philosophy where participation is always worth a Gold Star no matter how well you do. Closer to the other end of the spectrum, when I was a kid and I got 2nd place in something or an A- in a class, my parents would always tell me not to feel too bad about it because they knew I could do better and I just needed to work harder next time. Most people fall somewhere in the middle; you can "win" with a bronze medal or a B but not making it to that level is still a loss.

The problem is that your definition of "winning" falls pretty severely on the Gold Star side; everyone who doesn't die by the end of the adventure is a winner, even if their enemy is unvanquished and their universe destroyed. I would suggest giving a little more ground on the endings; if the players get the ability to say, choose between kicking Death's ass or stopping armageddon, then they can feel like they've won even though they haven't gotten everything they wanted. Then leave your current "win" as the Bad Ending and you're solid.First off - Armageddon isn't necessarily something the players want to stop. The world's broken, something's wrong, and Armageddon is a chance to fix it (Think C.S. Lewis' Chronicles of Narnia for the types of Armageddon - either the destruction of the winter at the end of The Lion, The Witch, and The Wardrobe, or the climax of The Last Battle). The world's not destroyed - it's purged, changed, and fixed. Death isn't something they can or want to utterly destroy. But what they CAN do is cripple and reduce its influence.

Besides, Death isn't a BBEG - he's the party's Political Sponsor/Springboard into the cosmic politics of the campaign. Death's not the one betraying the party - the party's betraying him.

To illustrate - allow me to show what I expect the flow of the campaign to be:

The party starts out a normal bunch of problem-solving murderhobos going through the world, fixing and breaking things as they see fit while learning more about it. Some of the things they think they fixed accidentally broke something, and some of the things they break accidentally fix something else. Eventually, they start seeing a bit of the underlying cosmic forces, or need a cosmic keystone to solve one of what they think is a larger problem.

However, the party is merely mortal, and thus lacks the cosmic clout or power to acquire the item or fix what's fundamentally wrong with the world that they decide to fix. Fortunately for them, they don't have to mope or flounder about the sudden realization of powerlessness for long. Their antics have been drawing the attention of the cosmic forces that control the world, and Death is in need of some ambitious lackeys to get an upper hand.

So, Death appears to the party, either if they seek him out, or stumble across him. He fills them in on enough of the cosmic issues to try and earn their loyalty, and empower them to be his stooges for a while - he's on their side, and their goals are aligned. However, after a few adventures, the party realizes that A.) Death's goals do not align with their own, and B.) They have been empowered with the knowledge and ability to start making their own way in the cosmos, becoming a player in the coming Armaggedon in their own right. Death, however, remains oblivious to the party's impending coup. He might have put a 'leash' on them - but the restrictions it has on them pale in comparison to the power and agency it grants. And, they can slip out of it when they need to.

I'd bastardize The Matrix to show a better example of how I'm seeing it.

[Geordnet]

I would suggest giving a little more ground on the endings; if the players get the ability to say, choose between kicking Death's ass or stopping armageddon, then they can feel like they've won even though they haven't gotten everything they wanted. Then leave your current "win" as the Bad Ending and you're solid.
Actually... What you describe has always been my plan for the ending. :smallbiggrin: :smalltongue:

(As much as the ending is really planned per se...)



I feel that 'make a deal with PCs on Deaths Door' is inconsistent with 'ultimately impersonal'.
As do I. Where do you keep getting this "deal" idea from, anyways? :smallconfused:



The curse is part of it. The other part is the fact that Death wants to use them to accomplish something that they would find abhorrent if they knew the truth.
Well, "hated"/"must be stopped" is really a false dichotomy, so the question remains: can this still be done in a satisfying way, taking all else into account? (Assume the curse has been dropped.)




First off - Armageddon isn't necessarily something the players want to stop. The world's broken, something's wrong, and Armageddon is a chance to fix it (Think C.S. Lewis' Chronicles of Narnia for the types of Armageddon - either the destruction of the winter at the end of The Lion, The Witch, and The Wardrobe, or the climax of The Last Battle). The world's not destroyed - it's purged, changed, and fixed. Death isn't something they can or want to utterly destroy. But what they CAN do is cripple and reduce its influence.
Yup. Those two are actually major sources of inspiration. (Although, it's mostly because I'm a sucker for truly epic battles. :smallwink:)



To illustrate - allow me to show what I expect the flow of the campaign to be:
Hm... Close, but you're putting too much importance on this one event. (Understandable, given that it's the only one that's been discussed in detail.) The information Death dispenses is crucial, but it is just one small kernel, not a total revelation. (The word "breakthrough" comes to mind: a singular discovery which is relatively insignificant by itself, but opens the door to vast new opportunities.) Also, Death doesn't "hire" or "draft" so much as give the information needed to do what It wants to those whom already possess the motives to do so.

[NichG]

Actually... What you describe has always been my plan for the ending. :smallbiggrin: :smalltongue:

(As much as the ending is really planned per se...)


Hopefully when you say this, you mean 'choose between defeating (personified) Death forever or stop the Armageddon forever' rather than just delay one or the other for 50 years.



As do I. Where do you keep getting this "deal" idea from, anyways? :smallconfused:


Its the implied threat of 'hey look, you need me to not die; it'd be a shame if I stopped doing this, eh?'. The perception of this depends heavily on getting the first encounter right. You can avoid this but if you mess it up even a little its going to turn out like this thread, e.g. the players will see this as an implicit deal even if you never explicitly threaten them. Earlier in the thread there was an example of a ingenue Death pretending to be in desperate trouble and helping the PCs as her last resort, which I thought was a clever way of avoiding the impression. On the other hand, an impassive 'I brought you back. You need to do this.' will be taken as a threat of 'I can un-bring-you-back if you don't do this.' by most players.



Well, "hated"/"must be stopped" is really a false dichotomy, so the question remains: can this still be done in a satisfying way, taking all else into account? (Assume the curse has been dropped.)


It only appears like a false dichotomy because "must be stopped" isn't a really good term for that type of villain since the point isn't 'you don't have to stop a hated villain', its that there's a difference between a villain you'd go after even if he backed off because you just want to give him a bad day and a villain you stop because its the right thing to do.

Perhaps 'faceless' or 'neutral' villain might be better. Its a spectrum with "hated" on one end and "tragic" on the other.

Anyhow, as I said earlier in the thread, I think this idea can work. My main concern is, to make this idea work you have to do it very very carefully and you have to be completely personally disconnected from the NPC. You also have to divest yourself of preconceptions of 'I can't let the players do X to Death because Death is a cosmic force'. You've said a lot of things like 'they can win, for the rest of their natural life' and 'when they win, Death still says 'I still win because you're mortal'' and things like that. For this idea to be pulled off in a satisfying manner, you need to mentally ready yourself and in fact seed in the possibility of outcomes that are worse for Death than that.

Maybe the PCs can de-personify all the big 4, maybe they can destroy the key forever, maybe they can become personally immortal, etc. These things have to be on the table or the players will feel that they both hate and are powerless against the scenario, which basically is going to cause battle fatigue and dissatisfaction if the situation remains for more than ~3-6 games.

Anecdotal examples:

- I was in a campaign where for the entire campaign there was a demon race who we just couldn't win fights against. At best we'd drive them off, but they would just teleport away when weakened. At worst, they were just numerically untouchable. By the end of the campaign we basically had to win against a big demon of that type or the world gets destroyed - however, the path-to-victory built into the campaign was 'survive 10 rounds, summon a goddess, and she will solve everything'. This was very unsatisfying because we never managed to overcome the problem we had over the course of the campaign (that we kept fighting these things but could never, personally, overcome one) and the players still gripe about that fact today several years later.

- In the campaign I'm currently running, the PCs were part of a generation-ship controlled by a bunch of insane AIs. The AIs were implementing a 1000 year cycle of growth and culling. Even though the PCs did manage to defeat the AIs within about 3 games of the conflict getting serious (e.g. threats from the AI to nuke cities and the like), the entire time they felt they couldn't really win because the AI was this distributed, external entity with control over the environment and they were stuck on a lower scale than it. It surprised me when they continued to feel this way even after they got into the guts of the ship, found the AI cores, and even sabotaged the AI's power sources and sensor grids so it was blind and couldn't really act. The arc was supposed to end with them captaining the ship after dispatching the AIs, but they ended up letting the ship land on the nearest planet because they just didn't want to deal with it anymore; they'd detached because it felt too out-of-scale and hopeless, and none of the solutions they figured out were really satisfying.

In contrast, they really liked going up against this one high-level swordsman NPC who was basically just a jerk and was well-enough optimized that the party seemingly just couldn't take him whenever they ran into him. Eventually one PC defeated him by something like a 4hp margin in a one-on-one duel to the death, and that remains a highlight of the campaign.

[Geordnet]

Hopefully when you say this, you mean 'choose between defeating (personified) Death forever or stop the Armageddon forever' rather than just delay one or the other for 50 years.
Let's just say that one of the things that's "broken" about the world is that Death's walking around manipulating the lives of mortals... :smallwink:


On the other hand, an impassive 'I brought you back. You need to do this.' will be taken as a threat of 'I can un-bring-you-back if you don't do this.' by most players.
Good thing Death says nothing of the sort, then. :smallyuk:

All Death says is: "The object you seek is at X. You can get there by doing Y." From the PC's point of view it'll look like this mysterious hooded figure is doing them a favor without even asking anything in return. :smalltongue:


Its a spectrum with "hated" on one end and "tragic" on the other.
That's what "false dichotomy" means: it isn't just one or the other.


My main concern is, to make this idea work you have to do it very very carefully and you have to be completely personally disconnected from the NPC.
I'm certainly doing so, for everything that matters.


You also have to divest yourself of preconceptions of 'I can't let the players do X to Death because Death is a cosmic force'.
I disagree. Visible limits are an important part of making things seem realistic and believable. Especially when they're required by the setting... (You wouldn't get mad at being unable to charm a golem, would you? Not being able to kill Death similarly makes sense.)

I'd rather focus on what can be done. Imprison Death's anthropomorphic form 'til Armageddon? Destroy it for a thousand years? Convince it that abandoning its schemes is in its own best interest? Anything is possible. Although, I hope my players come up with a more clever (and more feasible) solution than myself.


You've said a lot of things like 'they can win, for the rest of their natural life' and 'when they win, Death still says 'I still win because you're mortal'' and things like that. For this idea to be pulled off in a satisfying manner, you need to mentally ready yourself and in fact seed in the possibility of outcomes that are worse for Death than that.
When did I ever say there weren't? :smalltongue:

[Scow2]

Hopefully when you say this, you mean 'choose between defeating (personified) Death forever or stop the Armageddon forever' rather than just delay one or the other for 50 years.



Its the implied threat of 'hey look, you need me to not die; it'd be a shame if I stopped doing this, eh?'. The perception of this depends heavily on getting the first encounter right. You can avoid this but if you mess it up even a little its going to turn out like this thread, e.g. the players will see this as an implicit deal even if you never explicitly threaten them. Earlier in the thread there was an example of a ingenue Death pretending to be in desperate trouble and helping the PCs as her last resort, which I thought was a clever way of avoiding the impression. On the other hand, an impassive 'I brought you back. You need to do this.' will be taken as a threat of 'I can un-bring-you-back if you don't do this.' by most players.



It only appears like a false dichotomy because "must be stopped" isn't a really good term for that type of villain since the point isn't 'you don't have to stop a hated villain', its that there's a difference between a villain you'd go after even if he backed off because you just want to give him a bad day and a villain you stop because its the right thing to do.

Perhaps 'faceless' or 'neutral' villain might be better. Its a spectrum with "hated" on one end and "tragic" on the other.

Anyhow, as I said earlier in the thread, I think this idea can work. My main concern is, to make this idea work you have to do it very very carefully and you have to be completely personally disconnected from the NPC. You also have to divest yourself of preconceptions of 'I can't let the players do X to Death because Death is a cosmic force'. You've said a lot of things like 'they can win, for the rest of their natural life' and 'when they win, Death still says 'I still win because you're mortal'' and things like that. For this idea to be pulled off in a satisfying manner, you need to mentally ready yourself and in fact seed in the possibility of outcomes that are worse for Death than that.

Maybe the PCs can de-personify all the big 4, maybe they can destroy the key forever, maybe they can become personally immortal, etc. These things have to be on the table or the players will feel that they both hate and are powerless against the scenario, which basically is going to cause battle fatigue and dissatisfaction if the situation remains for more than ~3-6 games.

Anecdotal examples:

- I was in a campaign where for the entire campaign there was a demon race who we just couldn't win fights against. At best we'd drive them off, but they would just teleport away when weakened. At worst, they were just numerically untouchable. By the end of the campaign we basically had to win against a big demon of that type or the world gets destroyed - however, the path-to-victory built into the campaign was 'survive 10 rounds, summon a goddess, and she will solve everything'. This was very unsatisfying because we never managed to overcome the problem we had over the course of the campaign (that we kept fighting these things but could never, personally, overcome one) and the players still gripe about that fact today several years later.

- In the campaign I'm currently running, the PCs were part of a generation-ship controlled by a bunch of insane AIs. The AIs were implementing a 1000 year cycle of growth and culling. Even though the PCs did manage to defeat the AIs within about 3 games of the conflict getting serious (e.g. threats from the AI to nuke cities and the like), the entire time they felt they couldn't really win because the AI was this distributed, external entity with control over the environment and they were stuck on a lower scale than it. It surprised me when they continued to feel this way even after they got into the guts of the ship, found the AI cores, and even sabotaged the AI's power sources and sensor grids so it was blind and couldn't really act. The arc was supposed to end with them captaining the ship after dispatching the AIs, but they ended up letting the ship land on the nearest planet because they just didn't want to deal with it anymore; they'd detached because it felt too out-of-scale and hopeless, and none of the solutions they figured out were really satisfying.

In contrast, they really liked going up against this one high-level swordsman NPC who was basically just a jerk and was well-enough optimized that the party seemingly just couldn't take him whenever they ran into him. Eventually one PC defeated him by something like a 4hp margin in a one-on-one duel to the death, and that remains a highlight of the campaign.
First off, you're continuing to fundamentally misunderstand the plot and setting.

1. Armaggedon is "The final battle for the fate of the world", not "An Earth-shattering Kaboom." The ending of the world as it's known may just be the start of the birth of paradise. And even putting either off for 50/100 years can be a campaign victory, with a followup for a sequel later.

2. Death is not a villian, especially not at first. He's a political sponsor. The parties just need to know when to break free from him to do their own thing. Do your parties hate the cleric because "I stopped you from dying. Put me in charge of everything if you don't want to die in the future." Furthermore, death didn't "Bring them Back" - he just made sure they didn't go in the first place. As long as the PCs serve Death (And keep their planned treachery secret), the PCs have a safety net. If they decide to openly defy Death, they can function just fine without him by not doing stuff that will get them killed - Again, they got themselves TPK'd in the first place.

[Water_Bear]

Armaggedon is "The final battle for the fate of the world", not "An Earth-shattering Kaboom." The ending of the world as it's known may just be the start of the birth of paradise. And even putting either off for 50/100 years can be a campaign victory, with a followup for a sequel later.

We all get the reference, the four horsemen were kind of a tip-off. The thing is, outside of vikings anime writers and religious fanatics, a battle which will inevitably destroy the world is still an unqualified Bad End.

I am willing to bet that the PCs would rather preserve their "imperfect" world rather than destroy it on the off chance that the next one will be better. That's kind of the whole point of being a Hero; not giving up on the world and taking the easy way out, but fighting to preserve it despite it's flaws.


Do your parties hate the cleric because "I stopped you from dying. Put me in charge of everything if you don't want to die in the future."

The part I bolded is the reason why that kind of character is hated. It's an implicit threat and a means of controlling the party. If there's anything Players hate it's to be manipulated.

Don't get me wrong, those kinds of villains can be awesome; an enigmatic enemy the players despise for yanking their chain is excellent to motivate the party. I've used that kind of villain to great effect myself. But for them to work, the DM needs to be transparent enough that the PCs know they are only being dicked around in-game and have a reputation of impartiality that lets the players know that the DM isn't going to swoop in and Fiat away their victories or set up unbeatable no-win scenarios.


Furthermore, death didn't "Bring them Back" - he just made sure they didn't go in the first place.

Oh come on.

[NichG]

That's what "false dichotomy" means: it isn't just one or the other.

This is a dichotomy, but it is not 'false'. The players will not simultaneously hate the villain and be 'eh, whatever' about the villain. You can't really have a villain that the party wants to redeem AND wants to torture, unless the phrase 'word' here is being used with heavy irony.



I disagree. Visible limits are an important part of making things seem realistic and believable. Especially when they're required by the setting... (You wouldn't get mad at being unable to charm a golem, would you? Not being able to kill Death similarly makes sense.)


The reason you have to divest yourself of preconceptions isn't one of realism. Its one of gameplay. You are creating a scenario that a group of other people should have fun playing through. That means that realism and even internal consistency must either take a backseat to player psychology, or you must be careful not to run plots where the two come into conflict. This is a plot where the two have a possibility of coming into conflict, therefore you must go into it with the expectation that you may have to sacrifice realism/consistency in exchange for those things necessary for player enjoyment.

A simpler example: D&D 3.5 doesn't have rules for permanent limb loss or debilitation because in practice a player would discard the character and introduce a new one rather than play a character that is effectively permanently weakened. It may be realistic, but that realism is sacrificed because of an understanding of the metagame practicalities (namely that you basically can't force a player to play a character they don't want to play). If you try to force the realism by saying 'you can't make a new character' then you'll find that the player's maimed characters are unrealistically suicidal and tend to die in dumb ways.

The situation with your plotline is more complex because it is not necessarily the case that the players will fixate on 'Death must die'. But since it is a possibility (and one made even more likely by Death taking on the role of an antagonist after the party discovers that their quest is ending the world) you must be prepared to do what is necessary for the sake of the game.

If you are not prepared to sacrifice 'realism', do not run this plot.



I'd rather focus on what can be done. Imprison Death's anthropomorphic form 'til Armageddon? Destroy it for a thousand years? Convince it that abandoning its schemes is in its own best interest? Anything is possible. Although, I hope my players come up with a more clever (and more feasible) solution than myself.


Again, you must be prepared for your players choosing a particular goal for themselves. Given the personification and direct intervention in reality, choosing to try to end Death is a possible path. You can make this difficult commensurate with how outlandish it is, and you can say that individual plans will not work, but you cannot go into it with the mindset of 'I will refute any plan towards this goal because I'm choosing to define it as a-priori impossible'. That way leads massive player frustration.



When did I ever say there weren't? :smalltongue:

When you described Death as a Xanatos Gambit type, when you said that Death can never 'lose', when you said that Death is ultimately impersonal and won't show emotion to a mortal, etc.

To put it another way, you have never given any concrete example in this thread of something that would actually hurt Death on a personal level, and whenever the question comes up you deflect it. So: what will hurt Death on a personal level?

[Geordnet]

2. Death is not a villian, especially not at first. He's a political sponsor. The parties just need to know when to break free from him to do their own thing.
You're misunderstanding things. Death definitely is a villain, through and through. Moreover, Death wants the PCs to "do their own thing": it's an integral part of Death's plan. Including trying to defy Death. The PCs will need to do stuff they normally wouldn't to foil Death. :smallcool:



We all get the reference, the four horsemen were kind of a tip-off. The thing is, outside of vikings anime writers and religious fanatics, a battle which will inevitably destroy the world is still an unqualified Bad End.
In this case though, a better term would be "fix". From a certain point of view, the old world order is definitively no more, but it only gets to "the slate must be wiped clean to fix things" in the worst possible ending. (The one the BBEG is shooting for.) :smalltongue:


That's kind of the whole point of being a Hero; not giving up on the world and taking the easy way out, but fighting to preserve it despite it's flaws.
Which is why the "Trans-Armageddon" campaign is all about trying to preserve what's good in the world while the bad is being scourged. :smallwink:


The part I bolded is the reason why that kind of character is hated. It's an implicit threat and a means of controlling the party. If there's anything Players hate it's to be manipulated.
Good thing the part you bolded is never, ever said. Nor anything else to that effect.


Don't get me wrong, those kinds of villains can be awesome; an enigmatic enemy the players despise for yanking their chain is excellent to motivate the party. I've used that kind of villain to great effect myself. But for them to work, the DM needs to be transparent enough that the PCs know they are only being dicked around in-game and have a reputation of impartiality that lets the players know that the DM isn't going to swoop in and Fiat away their victories or set up unbeatable no-win scenarios.
Well, I know I'm never going to do either.



Furthermore, death didn't "Bring them Back" - he just made sure they didn't go in the first place.
Oh come on.
He's right, you know; you're kind of splitting hairs here.



This is a dichotomy, but it is not 'false'. The players will not simultaneously hate the villain and be 'eh, whatever' about the villain. You can't really have a villain that the party wants to redeem AND wants to torture, unless the phrase 'word' here is being used with heavy irony.
Um, so you're discounting the possibilities of mixed feelings, something in-between the two extremes, and varying opinions amongst the party? :smallconfused:


The reason you have to divest yourself of preconceptions isn't one of realism. Its one of gameplay.
No, it's one of immersiveness. :smalltongue:


A simpler example: D&D 3.5 doesn't have rules for permanent limb loss or debilitation because in practice a player would discard the character and introduce a new one rather than play a character that is effectively permanently weakened. It may be realistic, but that realism is sacrificed because of an understanding of the metagame practicalities (namely that you basically can't force a player to play a character they don't want to play). If you try to force the realism by saying 'you can't make a new character' then you'll find that the player's maimed characters are unrealistically suicidal and tend to die in dumb ways.
That's only one player mindset, not everybody thinks that way. :smallyuk:


The situation with your plotline is more complex because it is not necessarily the case that the players will fixate on 'Death must die'. But since it is a possibility (and one made even more likely by Death taking on the role of an antagonist after the party discovers that their quest is ending the world) you must be prepared to do what is necessary for the sake of the game.
And I am! If they decide to hunt Death with unending zeal, then I shall be happy to run it for them! :smallbiggrin:


When you described Death as a Xanatos Gambit type, when you said that Death can never 'lose', when you said that Death is ultimately impersonal and won't show emotion to a mortal, etc.
There are far worse endings for Death than what you described that work with all of these.


To put it another way, you have never given any concrete example in this thread of something that would actually hurt Death on a personal level, and whenever the question comes up you deflect it. So: what will hurt Death on a personal level?
I don't know, I'm not sure Death even has a "personal level" to hurt. But I'm sure my players will surprise me, and I'm happy to roll with it! :smallwink:

[Friv]

Do your parties hate the cleric because "I stopped you from dying. Put me in charge of everything if you don't want to die in the future."

I'd just take to take a moment out here - I once ran a game where the cleric wanted to demand donations to his church in exchange for healing people from the brink of death, and that went down like a lead balloon! Actually demanding control over the party's goals? Hoo boy.

[Geordnet]

Actually demanding control over the party's goals? Hoo boy.
Why won't this idea die?! :smallsigh:

[NichG]

Um, so you're discounting the possibilities of mixed feelings, something in-between the two extremes, and varying opinions amongst the party? :smallconfused:


Right now we don't have a specific party, specific players, specific reactions, so this is in the field of 'what things are likely to happen' rather than 'what are all the possible outcomes'. Sometimes you can try to make a hated villain and have it fizzle, or have a villain you think is tragic but the party ends up hating them.

My advice has been 'Based on what you have proposed, this villain will almost certainly be hated by your PCs. If you insist that he shouldn't be and ignore that reaction, the PCs will feel resentful of you instead.' This is a problem because you seem to be absolutely certain that the PCs won't hate your villain, but at least half of this thread has been saying 'I would hate this villain'. You need to pay attention to the fact that more than half of your test group is expressing something rather than just discounting it, ignoring it, and saying 'no you're wrong about how you'd feel because actually theres this thing you don't know'.

Also, if the party reacts with 3 mehs and one 'I really hate this guy', the 'I really hate this guy' person is the one who is going to be driving your campaign, not the 3 mehs.



No, it's one of immersiveness. :smalltongue:


For you it is, but not the players. If the players try things, they're saying 'I think this has a chance of working'. If the players don't think Death can die, they won't try to kill him and it won't come up. But if they do try to kill him, it means that they see a way in-character that looks to them like it should work based on everything they know about the universe so far. Blocking that because 'well I don't think Death should be able to die' damages their immersion, not the other way around.



That's only one player mindset, not everybody thinks that way. :smallyuk:


Some people would run with permanent debilitation; heck, I have a player who would run with it and try to have fun with it but thats because this player is on the whole better at optimization than my other players and so he takes on stuff like that so he can go all out and still have a level playing field. On the whole though this is a terrible terrible design idea because most players don't want to be at a permanent disadvantage compared to the other players. It is not a 'good' thing. And players have powers you can't constrain with game rules or DMing, like the ability to quit your game, sabotage the party, ruin your campaign by injecting inappropriate silliness that makes everyone else detach, and so on. You absolutely must must must take this into account. Your players are not a captive audience who you can do whatever you want to, they are people who are there to enjoy themselves.



And I am! If they decide to hunt Death with unending zeal, then I shall be happy to run it for them! :smallbiggrin:


No, no. Being willing to just 'run it for them' isn't enough. You have to be willing to run it in a way that success is possible. This is I think what you're missing. Just running reactions to the players' actions isn't enough as a DM, you have to understand what will eventually make them satisfied and create a path so that they can earn that, or fail to do so in a way that everyone at the table feels was a legitimate result. Sometimes this involves changing things behind the scenes, sometimes it involves dropping hints or giving hooks that make things possible that otherwise wouldn't be, sometimes it just involves OOC advice. The best DMing is when the players never know you've had to tweak things to make things turn out that way, but the worst DMing is when the DM runs game after game of the players trying to accomplish something while having already decided 'their goal is impossible'



There are far worse endings for Death than what you described that work with all of these.


This is yet another evasion from you about this. Stop assuring us that 'there are things we don't know that make this not a problem' and just say directly what they are so we can evaluate them and tell you whether we agree. What are the 'far worse endings'?



I don't know, I'm not sure Death even has a "personal level" to hurt. But I'm sure my players will surprise me, and I'm happy to roll with it! :smallwink:

This is not good enough. You should build weaknesses into the NPC to be discovered, because whenever the players do stuff to try to attack this, you're going to be falling back on 'Death is impersonal so this should fail' and saying 'no' a lot rather than saying 'that didn't work, but you notice something that hints at a way that might'. When the players seek out a way to do this, you should be prepared with a way to help them find out how to succeed if necessary.

[Jay R]

You're misunderstanding things.

Based on the course of this thread, my guess is that the most likely result of this campaign twist will be a continual process of misunderstanding things.

(Which is a common problem with deep storylines in D&D, of course.)

You now know the biggest potential problem for your plans. I recommend that you thank everybody that has misunderstood your idea, and then plan how to prevent your players from falling into the same misunderstandings.

[LokiRagnarok]

Idea: why not have the Wraith curse come from someone else than Death? Maybe there is a cosmic power which ensures that "everything goes smoothly". Think Auditors from Discworld, or the Psion from the Goblins comic. An "Order MUST be maintained at all costs" type of Lawful Neutral entity. Now, Death has broken one of the universes fundamental laws as a favor to the PCs, namely "People die when they are killed" (sorry :smalltongue:) to further his own goals.

That entity I described is not pleased with that. It wants people to die when they are supposed to. It cannot kill the PCs, as that would be Death's domain. But what it can do is put the Wraith curse on them as a workaround. Death, in turn, is powerless to remove it, as a Wraith curse it outside his domain; he however recognizes the curse for what it is and tells them about the consequences.

That way, Death turns from "I put that curse onto you" into "I cannot do anything about that, sorry."

[Friv]

Why won't this idea die?! :smallsigh:

I'm just responding to Scow2, man.

*EDIT* Actually, I was planning to stay out of this side of things, but I'm going to try anyway.

The reason that this idea won't die is that this idea is, to quote your thread title, what most of the posters here would think, as players, of the idea that you presented. They would be deeply suspicious of the extremely powerful questgiver, and that suspicion would heavily colour their approach to the game going forwards.

It's possible that your players will behave totally differently! But maybe, and I'm just tossing this out there, it's not super-useful to ask people what they think, and then when they tell you what they think, inform them that they are thinking wrong.

[batiushkov]

I really like the idea of having the curse come from some entity other than Death. That weakens him in terms of the PCs' understanding of him ("You can't fix this??") but not really in his own right.

I might suggest also that maybe when Death sends them back the first time, it doesn't look "planned". Maybe the party suffers a TPK and they come to in Death's anteroom -- and he chats with them and is ready to send them on but -- well, I know you were looking forward to eternal reward, but could you take care of this one thing on your plane for me? ("the least of rings...") You don't mind being returned to life? Thanks so much! How about an extra Con point each? Oh, it's the least I can do! Really!

Cut to: a month later, when the Con point drains away.

Cut to: two weeks later, when another Con point drains away...

["How do we contact that guy again?" "I don't know...he said he would see us when he saw us...uhoh."]

In other words: get them involved with your super-entity, who actually (or apparently) wants them to take care of something that is or appears to be a trifle for him. Like they're passing through his tollbooth and he can't leave, but they agree to bring him a bottle of water and some Snickers bars from the store. Seems fair! Man, what a nice guy!

I don't know what your ultimate plans are, but as a player, I would be more engaged if you roped the PCs in in a way that maybe even makes it appear like you had a TPK-save that was also an adventure hook...but then there are consequences...

[Scow2]

We all get the reference, the four horsemen were kind of a tip-off. The thing is, outside of vikings anime writers and religious fanatics, a battle which will inevitably destroy the world is still an unqualified Bad End.

I am willing to bet that the PCs would rather preserve their "imperfect" world rather than destroy it on the off chance that the next one will be better. That's kind of the whole point of being a Hero; not giving up on the world and taking the easy way out, but fighting to preserve it despite it's flaws.We're going back to the original source material, where the "end of the world" is an unqualified Good end. Salvation has come, evil has been vanquished forever, and the imperfect world has been fixed. It's not an "Off-chance" that the next one will be better. As long as the horsemen don't win, it's guaranteed - and it's not even a different world. Same world, same people (Plus the greatest guys from the world's history as well, though that part's optional). Going back to the other armaggedon alegory in The Lion, The Witch, and the Wardrobe, having the party avert Armageddon is like siding with the White Witch at the end to preserve her reign and keep the forever-winter you've known throughout your life from giving to the life-renewing spring.


The part I bolded is the reason why that kind of character is hated. It's an implicit threat and a means of controlling the party. If there's anything Players hate it's to be manipulated.And yet, most parties don't assume that's the attitude of the party cleric. If Death is benevolent enough to the party, they won't start hating/fearing him until they need to.

Oh come on.
The difference is that someone who brings you back may have you on a string, and sending you away is just a whim away - your life can be dismissed if you step out of line just as easily as Malack dismissed the Mass Death Ward he taught Durkon. If he merely passes on the opportunity to collect, he can't retroactively claim you - he has to wait for the next time around.


I'm still not seeing how Death starts as a villain from the player perspective. Yes, he becomes one as the players learn their goals are divergent - but that's further down the road. The game is one of political intrigue for these Paragon/Epic levels.

[Geordnet]

No, no. Being willing to just 'run it for them' isn't enough. You have to be willing to run it in a way that success is possible.
Oh, but I will. Just not the success they're thinking of. (As in, instead of killing Death, they banish It for a thousand years, or something.) :smalltongue:


This is yet another evasion from you about this. Stop assuring us that 'there are things we don't know that make this not a problem' and just say directly what they are so we can evaluate them and tell you whether we agree. What are the 'far worse endings'?
Anything you can imagine that's worse than a "meh" from Death, but doesn't involve killing It. I haven't got things planned out, it'll depend entirely upon what the players want to do; I'm trying to run an open game here. :smallyuk:


This is not good enough. You should build weaknesses into the NPC to be discovered, because whenever the players do stuff to try to attack this, you're going to be falling back on 'Death is impersonal so this should fail' and saying 'no' a lot rather than saying 'that didn't work, but you notice something that hints at a way that might'. When the players seek out a way to do this, you should be prepared with a way to help them find out how to succeed if necessary.
You misunderstand what I mean. If the players try this, I won't just say "no", I'll say "no, but". The same way I would if the players insisted on jumping over the Empire State Building (in a non-supers game). I'd say "no, but you can walk around or through it, use a helicopter or build a machine gun-powered jetpack." Because I needn't always say "yes" (http://angrydm.com/2012/11/dont-always-never-say-no/), and there's a very good reason not to (preserving the basic premise of the setting).



Idea: why not have the Wraith curse come from someone else than Death?
No, the curse was just an afterthought as to what Death might do in this situation. If Death isn't putting it on the players, it doesn't exist at all. (So right now, it doesn't exist.) :smalltongue:




The reason that this idea won't die is that this idea is, to quote your thread title, what most of the posters here would think, as players, of the idea that you presented. They would be deeply suspicious of the extremely powerful questgiver, and that suspicion would heavily colour their approach to the game going forwards.
No, this is the idea I was speaking of. The idea of "Death is the questgiver", not the reactions to it. I'm so frustrated because all the reactions are based on this one assumption, and when I try to clarify everyone assumes I'm unjustly dismissing their opinion. :smallsigh:



I don't know what your ultimate plans are, but as a player, I would be more engaged if you roped the PCs in in a way that maybe even makes it appear like you had a TPK-save that was also an adventure hook...
...

..."a TPK-save that was also an adventure hook..."

...This is all I've been trying to do all along. :smallsigh:



We're going back to the original source material, where the "end of the world" is an unqualified Good end.
Thankfully I'm prepared for both eventualities: "put off Armageddon indefinitely" is a "good" end as well. So, that's two broad directions the ending could go in: one's "safer", but the other is better in the end.


And yet, most parties don't assume that's the attitude of the party cleric. If Death is benevolent enough to the party, they won't start hating/fearing him until they need to.
Granted the players are likely to be suspicious in this case, but that's still a far cry from hating the character.


The difference is that someone who brings you back may have you on a string, and sending you away is just a whim away - your life can be dismissed if you step out of line just as easily as Malack dismissed the Mass Death Ward he taught Durkon. If he merely passes on the opportunity to collect, he can't retroactively claim you - he has to wait for the next time around.
In that respect, at least, the difference is significant here: this case is very much the latter.


I'm still not seeing how Death starts as a villain from the player perspective. Yes, he becomes one as the players learn their goals are divergent - but that's further down the road. The game is one of political intrigue for these Paragon/Epic levels.
The game very much is one of intrigue, I suppose; although it's set up in such a way that the players could run through it like hack-and-slash if they wish. In fact...
Intrigue is integrated into the setting at a very high level. The idea is that there's a big bad and a big good, which are pretty much the deities of the setting. Both know that if it came to a direct conflict, good would win but evil would be able to take everything good in the world with it. The event which triggers Armageddon is the straw which breaks the camel's back for the shadow war between them.


You now know the biggest potential problem for your plans. I recommend that you thank everybody that has misunderstood your idea, and then plan how to prevent your players from falling into the same misunderstandings.
That's probably the wisest idea...

[TinyHippo]

This thread strongly reminds me of the one a few days back where the GM set up a PvP scenario where one group of PC's were jailers torturing the other, and was then surprised it ended poorly.

[NichG]

Oh, but I will. Just not the success they're thinking of. (As in, instead of killing Death, they banish It for a thousand years, or something.) :smalltongue:


I'm curious why you keep insisting on this kind of thing though. I mean, why lessen their victory with a 'well you won, but surprise, its only for a thousand years'?



Anything you can imagine that's worse than a "meh" from Death, but doesn't involve killing It. I haven't got things planned out, it'll depend entirely upon what the players want to do; I'm trying to run an open game here. :smallyuk:


The players can do what they want but the NPC is in your court. Its up to you to make a Death that can be hurt, and then its up to the players to figure out one of the ways and then to do it. Normally the danger of saying 'this is the weak spot' is that you risk creating a one-solution railroad. The problem is right now you've got a zero-solution railroad, so even having the one solution is an improvement.

I'm still waiting for you to tell me a specific thing the PCs can do that would make Death suffer in a personal fashion.



You misunderstand what I mean. If the players try this, I won't just say "no", I'll say "no, but". The same way I would if the players insisted on jumping over the Empire State Building (in a non-supers game). I'd say "no, but you can walk around or through it, use a helicopter or build a machine gun-powered jetpack." Because I needn't always say "yes" (http://angrydm.com/2012/11/dont-always-never-say-no/), and there's a very good reason not to (preserving the basic premise of the setting).


The example you give isn't quite analogous. I'm arguing not that any individual solution should work, but that a solution should be allowed to exist if the players decide to make it their goal. Basically this is as if you secretly decided 'its impossible to get to the other side of the Empire State Building, but hey, you can go to the Metropolitan Opera if you like', then let them try but everything they do gets them to the Metropolitan Opera instead (or simply fails).

Now, if the campaign were about mercenaries in ancient Chinese mythology or something and the players randomly decide 'we want to time travel to modern New York and go sight seeing at the Empire State Building' then you can reasonably just say 'guys, thats not what the campaign is about' because its just so off-topic. But here you've made Death into an NPC, which basically means that it is on-topic for the PCs, and they'll just end up frustrated to hear 'no, you can't actually succeed in the goal you've set'.

So, I feel its more productive anyhow to tell you how to fix this:
Since you are convinced that it is impossible, the way to fix this is for you to come up with something that you think would work. This is the equivalent to 'suggesting the jetpack' in your example. When the players want to kill Death using swords, you should be ready to say 'uh, no, its Death, a sword won't do anything... but when you look into it, you hear this rumor of a hermit on a mountain who Death fears to try to collect...'

Basically that way, if and when your players decide to try to go this route, you have a way to make it not impossible that is minimally disruptive to your campaign's self-consistency. If on the other hand your suggestion doesn't actually do what they want, the players will rightfully reject it and complain you've set them an impossible task or made things impossible for them.

At this point, I could list a number of things that I think would work, but its likely to be an exercise in frustration for me as I expect you'd just say 'no, no, no, no, ...'. So instead I want to hear, what can you come up with that would work in your setting?

An aside:

Compare this situation to how players react when discovering how Faerun religion works, namely the whole bit with the Wall of the Faithless. Its a setting element that immediately makes a subset of players want to drop what they're doing and go take out Kelemvor. In your campaign, the issue is that basically 'Death is a villain' is a setting element that can't be left alone.

[Geordnet]

I'm curious why you keep insisting on this kind of thing though. I mean, why lessen their victory with a 'well you won, but surprise, its only for a thousand years'?
Why do you think it'll be a surprise? :smallconfused:

It'd be part of the planning phase, and the PCs would know what they're getting into. And I must insist because in the setting killing Death makes about as much sense as erasing nothingness, or putting a bag inside itself.


The players can do what they want but the NPC is in your court. Its up to you to make a Death that can be hurt, and then its up to the players to figure out one of the ways and then to do it.
Actually, I'm going the other way around: it's up to the players to figure out a plausible weak spot, then I shall make it so. :smalltongue:

What you see as a "zero-solution railroad" is in actuality a sandbox. :smallbiggrin:

[NichG]

Why do you think it'll be a surprise? :smallconfused:

It'd be part of the planning phase, and the PCs would know what they're getting into. And I must insist because in the setting killing Death makes about as much sense as erasing nothingness, or putting a bag inside itself.


I've been in games where both of those last things happened and made sense.



Actually, I'm going the other way around: it's up to the players to figure out a plausible weak spot, then I shall make it so. :smalltongue:


That is what you are doing, but I'm telling you its bad for you to refuse to even try to think about this. This is why I don't believe you should run this plot, not because you don't have an answer but because you refuse to consider thinking about it or taking these questions seriously. IMO you don't have the right attitude going into it to run this in a way that will be satisfying to your players, because you're too fixated on your plot and not enough on how it will feel or run from the player point of view.

Think of it like balancing a fight. You could just throw together enemies you think are interesting and around the party's CR, which is okay if you're running an easy game (both in the sense of the fights being easy, and also in the sense of your PCs being easy to run for - no extreme variances in power, cheese, etc). But if you push that envelope at all, you have to start considering not just the CR but also what your PCs can do. If the party has no source of flight or ranged combat, you could just throw a dragon at them and shrug 'well they'll figure something out'. But you're likely going to get a TPK that way. Similarly if you throw a bunch of land-bound enemies at a party that has a lot of flight, it'll be a slaughter in the other direction.

This plotline is not an 'easy' one to run in a satisfying manner. Thus, to make this work out you have to consider not just 'oh I think its cool they're smart it'll be fine' but also at the least be willing to think about it from the player point of view too.

Honestly what bothers me the most is not the content, its your attitude when confronted by people who have issues with it.

[Geordnet]

I've been in games where both of those last things happened and made sense.
You know what I mean. :smallsigh:



Think of it like balancing a fight.
The difference is, that's something the PCs are expected to fight. Death? The PCs are going to need to do some serious planning just to attack It, because It's almost never around. And when Death is, It never does anything more than say a few things before disappearing.

So, it's like asking me to plan out an encounter with the gazebo. Or a signpost. Or a Magic Mouth. :smallannoyed:



Honestly what bothers me the most is not the content, its your attitude when confronted by people who have issues with it.
My "attitude" is mostly due to the fact that most of the "issues" are based on misunderstandings of what's being presented to the players; which I try to correct (and sound bad when doing so, because of my poor communication skills). :smallyuk:

[SethoMarkus]

My "attitude" is mostly due to the fact that most of the "issues" are based on misunderstandings of what's being presented to the players; which I try to correct (and sound bad when doing so, because of my poor communication skills). :smallyuk:

I think this sums up the thread pretty well. What you have is a genuinely interesting and "cool" idea. Personally, I would not enjoy playing a character in such a campaign, but I would love to read a story with that plot or spectate a game played by other people.

I think the biggest issue is that what you plan to do and what the campaign technically does is not always consistent with what the campaign appears to be to the players. While the campaign is not a railroady, leashed plot, if it appears that way to the players (however wrong they may be in that assessment), they are going to treat the campaign that way. An imagined leash will still choke the players.

As long as you are aware of and acknowledge these possible pitfalls, and that what you intend the campaign to be and what the players perceive the campaign to be may not be aligned, I think you have a wonderful idea that will make for a memorable game.

[Water_Bear]

The difference is, that's something the PCs are expected to fight. Death? The PCs are going to need to do some serious planning just to attack It, because It's almost never around. And when Death is, It never does anything more than say a few things before disappearing.

So, it's like asking me to plan out an encounter with the gazebo. Or a signpost. Or a Magic Mouth. :smallannoyed:

Then perhaps Death is a poor choice as a BBEG.


My "attitude" is mostly due to the fact that most of the "issues" are based on misunderstandings of what's being presented to the players; which I try to correct (and sound bad when doing so, because of my poor communication skills). :smallyuk:

If your communication skills are poor and you become frustrated when people do not understand you, I cannot suggest running a game which hinges on the impressions the players get from communicating with the Big Bad. That sounds like it might play to your weaknesses more than your strengths.

[Scow2]

Then perhaps Death is a poor choice as a BBEG. Which is why he's not the BBEG. At least not in the same sense as Xykon.

[shaddy_24]

I don't understand why killing Death permanently is the only possible happy ending some people seem to be able to think of. Even more so, not every story has to have the best possible happy ending. I've seen games where the players aren't powerful enough to fix every problem and walk off into the sunset with no future worries. I've been in a game where our only final solution to the problem was to seal it away and hope that if/when the seal starts to break, someone else can handle it or reseal it, and it didn't destroy us. For a game in a low-powered setting, that's sort of what I'd expect.

[Geordnet]

While the campaign is not a railroady, leashed plot, if it appears that way to the players (however wrong they may be in that assessment), they are going to treat the campaign that way.
This is the misunderstanding I speak of. I've fixed the problem which lead to it, so why does it still persist?!? :smallconfused:

I just don't see how it'd look like a leash to the players. :smallsigh:



Which is why he's not the BBEG. At least not in the same sense as Xykon.
Exactly. Imagine Death as sort of a cross between the Oracle and the Dark One-sans sympathetic motivations.

Either way, I can definitely point to one character as the ultimate "big bad" of the setting, which isn't Death. At the very least, there's a Rogue's Gallery of other characters on equal standing with Death. (Such as the other three horsemen...)



For a game in a low-powered setting, that's sort of what I'd expect.
This describes the situation rather succinctly, if I do say so myself. :smalltongue:

[NichG]

Which is why he's not the BBEG. At least not in the same sense as Xykon.

Its pretty clear that you're thinking of Death as the OOTS equivalent of the Snarl as to why its not a BBEG. Basically, big, cosmic, abstract, hostile force.

On the other hand Geordnet appears to be thinking of Death more as 'this is a villainous NPC but the PCs will just touch lightly with his villainy and should focus on other NPCs', thus the comparison with the Dark One and the Oracle.

The problem is when you take the Oracle, an NPC who based on his behavior may piss off the PCs, and then conflate him with 'untouchable cosmic power'. Its threatens to be unsatisfying because if you mess it up at all it feels like a GM power trip from the point of view of the players. Or it feels like 'hey, this is just a guy, lets kill him' should be reasonable.

Thats why I suggest not actually personifying Death if you want him to be an untouchable, cosmic force. Or at least, not putting him in an antagonistic role to the PCs (which he very much is, since his goals end the world in a way that the PCs are unlikely to support and in fact are expected by the DM to go against).

Think of it like a Planescape campaign. In Planescape you have the Lady of Pain. The books basically have her as 'this NPC has no stat block because she cannot be killed or interacted with mechanically - doing so would be like fighting the sky'. Thats pretty analogous with this Death. The source material also basically says 'use her sparingly if at all, and when you do she should basically show up, do what is necessary, and leave without other interaction or discussion'. Even this much irks some players, by the way, though I think at this point its fine since out of sight out of mind.

Now consider a plot where the Lady of Pain shows up to a PC and says 'The artifact you want is on this plane, in these ruins.' First off, the Lady of Pain immediately feels more approachable and more on the scale of the PCs than on the scale the source material presents her on - e.g. this may convince players OOC that they 'have a chance' against her if it came to blows, at least theoretically; could be a problem but isn't necessarily going to come up.

Secondly, though, the players will in most cases immediately go 'wait a minute, this is someone who pretty much kills or imprisons anyone she ever interacts with for any reason'. And from that observation is going to spring all of the complexities of running a plot like this.

The fact that this character (Lady of Pain, Death) has chosen to talk to the PCs but never talks to anyone else is the elephant in the room. Once thats out there, the PCs may say 'cool!' and just move on (phew!), they may say 'uh oh, something is up', they may say 'why us?', etc.

Now, take that plot, and go forward to when the artifact the Lady of Pain/Death helped the party find is discovered to be a really bad thing. And that its successful recovery was a really bad thing. Now at this point most players will feel like they've been jerked around (because, well, they have). The problem is, they've been jerked around by someone totally outside of their pay grade. In this situation, it will be very hard for players to find a means of recourse that they believe will work (this is why I'm getting on Geordnet for his attitude here - if you as the DM put in three ways for the players to get recourse against Death you'll be lucky for them to discover even one of them. If you put in none and hope they figure it out, well...).

So if the players can't get recourse in game, many of them will feel like the game has basically been a way for the GM to abuse them by forcing them into a situation where they're made to suffer and can't do anything about it. Thus, out of character resentment.

Now, lets say we want to go back and make this plot easier to run. There are a number of things that can be done:

1. Don't personify Death at all. The PCs don't meet an avatar and hear it speak, they wake up with knowledge they didn't have before. This lessens the chance that the PCs in turn take things personally.

2. Death isn't made out to be directly antagonistic/'using' the party at all. This is the aforementioned 'enemies of the party just tend to not stay dead' idea. Alternately, maybe a party member nearly dies and, on Death's door, happens to overhear a conversation between Death and someone else, but then they stabilize/recover/whatever. This way the party might feel 'oh, we got info we weren't supposed to have!' rather than 'we were used'.

3. Death is made out to be directly antagonistic but not invulnerable to being emotionally hurt. I don't even think you need a killable Death, but you do need one that can be hurt personally in a way that is communicated clearly to the players. This goes the other way on the character, making them very 'personal' instead of 'impersonal', but in a very specific way. Perhaps Death wants the world to end because the last blooming and dying of a particular tree was as perfect as the event can possibly be, and if it should happen again then that perfection will be ruined. Perhaps Death loves someone who is suffering some sort of torture that continues so long as the world continues, and Death is trying to bring them peace. Perhaps Death is bored and wants his job to be over, so is trying to get all the dying out of the way sooner rather than later (in which case imprisoning Death for a long time with even less to do could suffice). Another way to do this is to allow for a way that Death can be subjugated by the PCs and be forced to serve them. This is the road where you make the players hate Death then give them a way to have a visceral victory against it.

4. Death is brutally honest at every turn. Instead of manipulative trickery, he simply tells the PCs his entire plan on first contact and explains why this is the best thing for the world. If th PCs eventually decide otherwise, despite the difficulty of the other path, then Death becomes a 'reluctant villain', who is harrying the PCs because they are taking the more risky route rather than the safest route to 'concluding the world' correctly.

There are more, but I think thats enough for now.

[Geordnet]

The problem is when you take the Oracle, an NPC who based on his behavior may piss off the PCs, and then conflate him with 'untouchable cosmic power'.
Um, he doesn't have that already? :smallconfused:

(I mean, just look at what happened to Belkar...)


Or at least, not putting him in an antagonistic role to the PCs (which he very much is, since his goals end the world in a way that the PCs are unlikely to support and in fact are expected by the DM to go against).
Long-term, yes... But only slightly less long-term goals actually coincide with those the PCs are expected to have. Short-term goals are absolutely parallel for them. :smalltongue: :smallbiggrin:


The fact that this character (Lady of Pain, Death) has chosen to talk to the PCs but never talks to anyone else is the elephant in the room.
Um, that simply is incorrect. :smallyuk:


Now, take that plot, and go forward to when the artifact the Lady of Pain/Death helped the party find is discovered to be a really bad thing. And that its successful recovery was a really bad thing.
Again, neither is true for this campaign. From a certain point of view they're both very good things.


Alternately, maybe a party member nearly dies and, on Death's door, happens to overhear a conversation between Death and someone else, but then they stabilize/recover/whatever. This way the party might feel 'oh, we got info we weren't supposed to have!' rather than 'we were used'.
That's an interesting direction to take things... And it's certainly something Death would do on purpose. :smallwink:


3. Death is made out to be directly antagonistic but not invulnerable to being emotionally hurt.
Death probably isn't. It's just that it would take a very situational set of events to irk Death, and I can't think of an example off the top of my head.


Perhaps Death is bored and wants his job to be over, so is trying to get all the dying out of the way sooner rather than later (in which case imprisoning Death for a long time with even less to do could suffice).
Another idea which would work.


4. Death is brutally honest at every turn. Instead of manipulative trickery, he simply tells the PCs his entire plan on first contact and explains why this is the best thing for the world. If th PCs eventually decide otherwise, despite the difficulty of the other path, then Death becomes a 'reluctant villain', who is harrying the PCs because they are taking the more risky route rather than the safest route to 'concluding the world' correctly.
That fits Death's personality like a glove, actually... :smallamused:

[SethoMarkus]

This is the misunderstanding I speak of. I've fixed the problem which lead to it, so why does it still persist?!? :smallconfused:

I just don't see how it'd look like a leash to the players. :smallsigh:


I'm not saying that there is reason for a player to see it one way or the other, just that player perception is more important than campaign technicality. Aside from trying to change the campaign, it doesn't really matter why people see it as a railroad, just that they do. It's something that needs to be accepted on all sides and either understand that not everyone will have the same reaction to it and some people will view it as a leash, or change that aspect of it. Even if some people still see it as a leash, that doesn't mean it is a bad plot or campaign as long as your players still have fun.

For the record, I do not see it as a railroad plot, after you have explained it, though I can completely understand why someone would make that assumption. However, it still doesn't seem like a campaign I would want to play in; not my style.

[Geordnet]

See what as a leash, though? :smallconfused:

[Scow2]

The best hope is for players who are looking for an excuse to play Old Man Henderson, which is usually a bad thing at a table because it's adversarial to the GM. The secret is that the GM is playing up the Adversarial aspects, but still secretly rooting for the party's antics. Or pretend to be Chief Circle (At least on setting points - but FAR more receptive to crazy ideas).

If you don't such players, you need to capitalize and emphasize two "weaknesses" of Death:
1. He's brutally honest, and doesn't mask his motivations.
2. He cannot comprehend that others would defy him.
3. He has no concept of Reverse Psychology.

By following those guidelines, it would make it clear to the players that
1. Death is empowering them to continue on their quest.
2. The party's goals and Death's are similar enough that the party can pursue their own quest without tipping off Death that they're not entirely onboard (And can easily deceive him)
3. Their goals are divergent enough to show that blindly following Death is a Bad Idea.
4. The party has plenty of warning against what kinds of actions not to take
5. The party has ideas of what actions are better to take for their own goals, and to shanghai Death's victory.

[Geordnet]

If you don't such players, you need to capitalize and emphasize two "weaknesses" of Death:
1. He's brutally honest, and doesn't mask his motivations.
2. He cannot comprehend that others would defy him.
3. He has no concept of Reverse Psychology.
These three (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vt0Y39eMvpI) fit very well with but one modification: Death does not understand why mortals defy It. Death can obviously see that they don't, but It hasn't a clue as to the reasons why.

[Jerthanis]

See what as a leash, though? :smallconfused:

At this point it really seems like you're being obstinate about this. I think we've clearly explained time and again the way that Death's Curse can be seen as a leash by the PCs. We've explained how PC perceptions are more important than the actual technical reality of the game, since their perceptions rule their reactions, plans and overall enjoyment of the game. And we've explained the many potential pitfalls and potential for denying satisfaction to your players this can cause.

At each turn you've either ignored us, feigned ignorance, completely failed to understand, or insisted that in fact we are wrong, and that these qualities are good and not bad.

At this point I have to say to you "Good luck with this, you'll need it." and expect the next time I hear about this campaign is in a "Bad game horror stories" thread some day.

[Geordnet]

At this point it really seems like you're being obstinate about this. I think we've clearly explained time and again the way that Death's Curse can be seen as a leash by the PCs.
Which is why I removed it.

With the curse gone, what is there left? :smallconfused:

[Rhynn]

What you see as a "zero-solution railroad" is in actuality a sandbox. :smallbiggrin:

It's not really got anything to do with a sandbox: a sandbox campaign is a map with a lot of locations shallowly designed (a paragraph), and some locations detailed. The players follow leads to have adventures (partly created by random tables), and entire modules can be plopped in.

A sandbox also needs NPCs and creatures that have been defined in some way, so that the GM isn't going purely by fiat. Basically, you should come up with as many options as you can off-hand, and then roll with any good ones the players come up with. You don't entirely skip coming up with, e.g., weaknesses in the villains' plans.

You've come up with ... it looks like no solutions.

Really, for the benefit of those of us who can't see it, can you just give some examples?


Death probably isn't. It's just that it would take a very situational set of events to irk Death, and I can't think of an example off the top of my head.

Ex-am-ple, ex-am-ple!

If you can't think of any, that sure suggests none exist. Why do you think the players could think of any if you, with perfect knowledge of and authority over the cosmic rules of the setting and the nature of Death, can't? That seems absurd.


The difference is, that's something the PCs are expected to fight. Death? The PCs are going to need to do some serious planning just to attack It, because It's almost never around. And when Death is, It never does anything more than say a few things before disappearing.

So, it's like asking me to plan out an encounter with the gazebo. Or a signpost. Or a Magic Mouth.

It's more like asking you to consider an obvious and likely outcome. It's exactly like that.

You keep comparing this to a sandbox (it really isn't, and has basically no resemblance to one). In a sandbox, you have to 1. think of as many outcomes as possible beforehand and/or 2. be genuinely ready to deal with any outcomes, including the ones where the players just skip it. ("Naw, I'm good with being dead"; "I'd rather die than be anyone's errand boy"; etc.)

Your idea hinges on it not being a sandbox: starting from the TPK, it's a railroad. (Starting at the moment or after death, however, would be fine; I've read a few cool RPG scenarios that start at or around death.)

Or, wait, is the TPK still on? You've edited the first post, but it's really hard to keep track of what the proposed implementation is at this point. Maybe you can restate the idea in its current complete form? (Is it even worth the trouble?)


My "attitude" is mostly due to the fact that most of the "issues" are based on misunderstandings of what's being presented to the players; which I try to correct (and sound bad when doing so, because of my poor communication skills). :smallyuk:

If almost everyone keeps "misunderstanding" you, that suggests single source for the misunderstandings.

Also, a lot of this thread looks to be someone bringing up a concern, problem, or perception, and you bringing up something to address it that you didn't present before. Right, that's understandable, you can neither think of everything nor present every eventuality beforehand, but then what do you expect? If people have incomplete information, they're going to use it to form an opinion - and they're trusting you to communicate your ideas in a way that allows them to form an opinion.


I think this sums up the thread pretty well. What you have is a genuinely interesting and "cool" idea. Personally, I would not enjoy playing a character in such a campaign, but I would love to read a story with that plot or spectate a game played by other people.

It just sounds like stock "awesome GM avatar makes PCs do things" to me.


doing so would be like fighting the sky

I get (and agree with) your point, but I have to paraphrase you and say that I know games where you can do that. :smallbiggrin:

[SethoMarkus]

See what as a leash, though? :smallconfused:

Did you even read the rest of my post? There doesn't have to be a leash. As long as 1 player thinks that there is a leash, then it is very likely that all the players will react as though there was a leash.

I've tried to tell you this from your own side, but you seem to just be refusing anyone with an opinion even slightly off from your own. Please answer me one question: what was the purpose of posting this thread? The title suggests that you wanted feedback, but as others before me have already pointed out, that doesn't seem to be the case.

[Geordnet]

It's not really got anything to do with a sandbox: a sandbox campaign is a map with a lot of locations shallowly designed (a paragraph), and some locations detailed. The players follow leads to have adventures (partly created by random tables), and entire modules can be plopped in.
Then give me a better word for a campaign which is driven primarily by the PCs as opposed to the GM. :smallyuk:


Basically, you should come up with as many options as you can off-hand, and then roll with any good ones the players come up with.
That's the plan...


You don't entirely skip coming up with, e.g., weaknesses in the villains' plans.
Death isn't supposed to be the villain, so does the same apply?

Either way, off the top of my head some "weaknesses" are:

This is by far not the only evil plan in operation, and others oppose it.
It revolves around a single artifact which may be sealed away and hidden.
Taken by itself, the culmination of the plan is actually a good ending. It's additional plans which eventually create a bad one.
Any flaws you'd expect from a non-omniscient being whom doesn't understand human motivations.


You've come up with ... it looks like no solutions.
It depends on what you mean by "solution". Sure, there's no one answer which "fixes everything", but there doesn't have to be one. I'm basically saying "choose between these imperfect but still good endings".


If you can't think of any, that sure suggests none exist. Why do you think the players could think of any if you, with perfect knowledge of and authority over the cosmic rules of the setting and the nature of Death, can't? That seems absurd.
There doesn't even have to be any ways, because Death doesn't have to be emotionally hurt, because Death is supposed to be a "must be stopped" as opposed to "hated" villain. Also, I don't have perfect knowledge; I need to leave some things open to change as needed as the campaign progresses. :smallyuk:


It's more like asking you to consider an obvious and likely outcome. It's exactly like that.
It looks about as obvious and likely as attacking the gazebo to me. :smallyuk:


You keep comparing this to a sandbox (it really isn't, and has basically no resemblance to one). In a sandbox, you have to 1. think of as many outcomes as possible beforehand and/or 2. be genuinely ready to deal with any outcomes, including the ones where the players just skip it.
I've told you one idea out of a setting with hundreds in it. Of course it's going to look like there's only one option when I've only mentioned one. I'm perfectly fine with the players doing whatever they want, including skipping it, and have basic plans for most.


("Naw, I'm good with being dead"; "I'd rather die than be anyone's errand boy"; etc.)
"Then go ahead and commit suicide-by-berserking or something"; "then don't be Death's 'errand boy' (although I'm not sure what gave you that idea)".


Your idea hinges on it not being a sandbox: starting from the TPK, it's a railroad.
Normally a TPK is the ultimate railroad, so I don't see how 5 minutes of railroaded exposition followed by a resumption of open-world-ness is in any way unacceptable. :smallconfused:


(Starting at the moment or after death, however, would be fine; I've read a few cool RPG scenarios that start at or around death.)
The difference being? I've always been seeing my "campaign" as a collection of plot hooks more than anything else, really. The players can pick whichever one they want, and then take it in whatever direction they want. So, this is just the start of one subplot* in the larger overarching story.

*Not to suggest that I've "planned out" the PCs' actions in advance; it's just that I couldn't think of a better word to use here.


Or, wait, is the TPK still on? You've edited the first post, but it's really hard to keep track of what the proposed implementation is at this point. Maybe you can restate the idea in its current complete form? (Is it even worth the trouble?)
I've edited the OP to better reflect my current idea. It's up to date as of this post. (Although I'm not sure I've put in all the extra stuff which came up along the way yet...)


If almost everyone keeps "misunderstanding" you, that suggests single source for the misunderstandings.
Yeah, the curse. I really regret having ever mentioned it now, especially since it was an ancillary idea tacked on at the last minute... :smallfrown:


It just sounds like stock "awesome GM avatar makes PCs do things" to me.
Actually, if there's a GM avatar in the setting, it's probably the "big good". But I've been sure to make certain his hands are tied until Armageddon, when the PCs are still the deciding factor between "big bad MADs with all the good in the world" and "evil vanquished; all look forwards to a brighter tomorrow". :smalltongue:



There doesn't have to be a leash. As long as 1 player thinks that there is a leash, then it is very likely that all the players will react as though there was a leash.
Understood, but what remains to give even one player the impression of a leash?


I've tried to tell you this from your own side, but you seem to just be refusing anyone with an opinion even slightly off from your own.
I think the root of the problem is that they're responding to what they see, and not what I'm thinking of... I do believe that if you go back and check, the feedback I'm most receptive to is that which helps me match up what I'm thinking of with what others see, and that which I've been least receptive to is that which just decries what the commenter sees as inherently bad. :smallfrown:


Please answer me one question: what was the purpose of posting this thread? The title suggests that you wanted feedback, but as others before me have already pointed out, that doesn't seem to be the case.
I'm looking for feedback to the scenario I'm trying to craft, and how to refine my current idea in that direction. Any of the feedback I've "refused" has been responding to the wrong thing (the parts which are ancillary to the real idea, which I now regret having ever mentioned).

[Scow2]

All it takes to clear up the "Leash" issue is for one player to test it, and see that he 'slipped it' effortlessly. The only case I can see Geordnet's players taking issue with the plot as "railroady" is if they also feel suddenly railroaded by reading a notice in a tavern about kobolds being a problem, and jumping from "Oh no! Our sandbox has been ruined because we MUST go kill these kobolds then chase down their leader and learn he's part of a bigger threat and we shall go from level 1 to level 20 trying to fend off the Koboldopocalypse" and leaving the GM like :smallconfused:

The TPK/Death is a plothook that serves as an invitation to more involvement in the cosmology of the world. Death's villainous plans require the PCs to at least initially cooperate. Saying "I think not" means that, for the rest of the player character's lives, at least, the status quo is maintained.

And Death's plans do have weaknesses. Namely:
Requiring the party to cooperate
Requiring the party to cooperate fully, with no attempt at misdirection or sabotage.
Require the party to not act on information that lets them work contrary to Death's plan (Some of which may be given by Death himself).
Require the party to sit on their hands after being Death's stooges.

Sometimes, to defeat Ganon, Link has to open the Chamber of Fate.

[Rhynn]

All it takes to clear up the "Leash" issue is for one player to test it, and see that he 'slipped it' effortlessly. The only case I can see Geordnet's players taking issue with the plot as "railroady" is if they also feel suddenly railroaded by reading a notice in a tavern about kobolds being a problem, and jumping from "Oh no! Our sandbox has been ruined because we MUST go kill these kobolds then chase down their leader and learn he's part of a bigger threat and we shall go from level 1 to level 20 trying to fend off the Koboldopocalypse" and leaving the GM like :smallconfused:

No, the railroading is when all the PCs must die in a TPK. That's the ultimate railroading. What if they teleport away before they die? What if one of them has a contingent raise dead or something similar? What if what if? That set-up is so full of holes it's almost inevitable something's going to go wrong, and then to go ahead railroading ("nope, sorry, you die anyway") must happen.

A TPK that just happens is not a railroad. People have these weird ideas about what railroading is: it is, quite simply, when the GM forces something to happen regardless of what the PCs do.

[Geordnet]

What if they teleport away before they die? What if one of them has a contingent raise dead or something similar? What if what if?
If they avoid having a TPK, then it simply doesn't happen. I thought I had made that clear already. :smallannoyed:


This is just one specific plan for one specific contingency which happens (or not) entirely according to the players and the dice. So, if there's never a TPK, then this event never occurs. (If something like half of the party dies when the other half flees, I might adapt the plan for that; but otherwise the story simply advances in a different direction.)

[NichG]

Honestly I think at this point the idea is manageable. If the campaign isn't contingent on it occurring or on the PCs reacting to it a specific way, if there isn't really a 'I will send you back but you will do this' sort of thing, and especially if its something passive like a nearly dead PC eavesdropping on one of Death's conversations, then it should probably be fine.

Whether it improves the campaign? Well, probably it does. Its extra content that makes it feel like something is going on behind the scenes and gives the players a window into that; if all else is neutral, thats a plus (most of the debate on this thread has been with regards to all else being neutral basically). I personally don't think that this version of Death as an NPC is particularly interesting (there's no real twist or depth to the character as presented) but I suppose some players may find it interesting.

I'd personally run it differently than Geordnet has proposed though. I'd really push the 'if you're on Death's door you hear snippets from Death's realm' aspect strongly as a GM and make it clear that this is just part and parcel of near death experiences, but that the PCs got lucky on timing. This could lead to shenanigans where the PCs try to get close to Death again without dying which could be amusing, and since its in the PCs' hands it gives them a sort of tool to play with. This way also increases the chance that the plot element comes up, compared to e.g. having to wait for a TPK. The best part is it means that should the TPK happen, the PCs might have something to barter with Death to avoid the actual TPK - namely, if they've heard snippets of Death's conversations they can mention things from those conversations and basically have something in their hand to play. That means that basically, if it goes that route, the PCs are the ones causing it to happen proactively, which makes them feel in control (even if it was all a ploy by Death from the beginning).

And if the PCs don't go that route, well, you just do something else and let this subplot drop.

[Jerthanis]

Which is why I removed it.

With the curse gone, what is there left? :smallconfused:

Oh what? Who? I guess I wasn't reading closely enough, haha.

I didn't notice you had opted to drop the curse, my mistake. I thought your "What leash?" comment was you just being like, "Lalala, still not convinced the curse will be seen as a leash!"

I retract my previous statement, and apologize for my frustrated tone.

Honestly, without the curse, it really does change things. When the characters aren't under Death's bony thumb, his advice is just advice, and if he wants to stab them in the back, he's got to do it to their faces. (Wait...)