George R. R. Martin or J. R. R. Tolkien

[Lance Tankmen]

So for many people I feel that they prefer to run tales like Lord of the Rings where threat of death is only reserved to one or two "main" characters and side kick's. And I've seen a few who pretty much view death as common place and part of the game to be their as a constant reminder that the players aren't gods.

Myself personally I find that as a DM I prefer my party to stomp on the weakling but actually have to think and plan vs true enemies and if they simply think they can walk in and not use any abilities but hack and slash. On the flip side I don't enjoy killing my players characters unless it's truly a death of epic proportions. But I still like the gear of death to instill in the players a level headed Ness instead of a I can kill every guard in town and get away with it cause I'm the PC.


How do you as player or as a DM view character Death

[Lalliman]

There's already a recent thread on this topic over here (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?499521-How-great-should-the-risk-of-dying-be).

Also, I know this isn't the point of the thread, but it's not like GRRM kills his characters at the drop of a hat. I won't name names for the sake of People Who Live Under Rocks, but when a major character dies, it's always because they made an unwise decision and brought it upon themselves.

Which I think is a pretty good philosophy when it comes to RPGs. Make the encounters (the major ones, that is) easy enough that the players won't be easily screwed by a bad die roll, but hard enough that a bad decision can get them killed.

[hymer]

I think Tolkien and Martin do mostly the same thing when it comes to character death. They kill off characters that looks like they could have been important mid-plot, but the actual main characters are safe until the plot is resolved.
If you cast your mind back to the first time your read LotR, the death of Boromir made a huge difference. Because of that, the 'deaths' of Gandalf and Frodo were much more frightening, because one important-seeming guy had already died and wasn't coming back. And the plot would seem able to go on without them. ASoIaF has apparently gotten past the stage where people you root for die by now, though Martin may try a few more.
The main differences are in numbers (there are more characters in ASoIaF, and more of them can be killed off) and consciousness (Martin is trying harder to play with this than Tolkien seemed to do).

That said: As DM, I see PC death as something that should always be a possibility, albeit remote. Do something sufficiently stupid or be sufficiently unfortunate, and a PC dies. Without that threat, the game loses something, just as it loses something if there's nothing to be gained. Something similar goes for NPCs. I recall a dragon attack on a feast (http://dark-was-the-dawn.wikispaces.com/Aznox%27+Parting+Shot) held to celebrate seeing off a siege. I purposely had the NPCs that died be randomly chosen, except where the PCs actively intervened to keep them safe.
I don't plan PC deaths, although some NPCs may. I sometimes plan NPC deaths, but not usually.

As a player, I hate it when the DM pulls punches. If I sense s/he does that, the game loses a lot of savour for me. I want to conquer or fail on my own merits.

For those who have been deprived: Martin vs. Tolkien (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XAAp_luluo0).

[arrowed]

Tis the honour of the death that is key, good sir! :smallbiggrin: As a player, I don't mind dying that much, it wouldn't be fun if you couldn't fail. However, there's a big difference I think between falling to some nameless goblin arrow and being rent asunder by whatever beast the campaign/adventure revolves around. Basically I don't think this (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0443.html) is so bad when it follows this (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0430.html).

[JellyPooga]

I recall a dragon attack on a feast (http://dark-was-the-dawn.wikispaces.com/Aznox%27+Parting+Shot) held to celebrate seeing off a siege. I purposely had the NPCs that died be randomly chosen, except where the PCs actively intervened to keep them safe.

I'd have played it a little differently myself; rather than have random NPCs die unless the PCs intervene, I'd ask the PCs which NPCs they want to try and save and which they're willing to sacrifice...have their choice decide, not fate, as it were. The difference is subtle but important. With random targeting, key NPCs may not be a target and in need of saving, which steals the opportunity for the PCs to play Hero for those NPCs they want to save. Giving your players Sophies Choice (http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Sophie%27s%20choice), in my experience, almost always makes for a good scene and you can't trust the Dice Gods to play ball with your plot.

[PeteNutButter]

As a DM, I probably err a bit on the player killer side... such is life. But when playing I tend to let my hubris get ahead of me and feel like if I died it's because I took on something I shouldn't have. I'm totally ok with that.

BUT when you die because the DM rolled 3 crits in a row you go down and the party runs leaving you to bleed out... well that's just ****. Needless to say I was a bit miffed. That's the problem with RNG. I was the tank. It was a level appropriate encounter. Party saw me go down so panicked. What's the DM to do? Pull punches?

[The_Snark]

Also, I know this isn't the point of the thread, but it's not like GRRM kills his characters at the drop of a hat. I won't name names for the sake of People Who Live Under Rocks, but when a major character dies, it's always because they made an unwise decision and brought it upon themselves.

To continue this tangent, if you look at the Silmarillion instead of LotR then Tolkien is probably more of a killer DM than Martin. Some would-be protagonists get glorious deaths, others get horribly screwed over, and a few were frankly asking for it*, but very few of them make it to the end of their stories alive.

*Feanor and his sons would actually make a lot of sense as a certain sort of PC: reckless, totally indifferent to NPC lives and wants, and obsessed with loot.

[hymer]

I'd have played it a little differently myself; rather than have random NPCs die unless the PCs intervene, I'd ask the PCs which NPCs they want to try and save and which they're willing to sacrifice...have their choice decide, not fate, as it were. The difference is subtle but important. With random targeting, key NPCs may not be a target and in need of saving, which steals the opportunity for the PCs to play Hero for those NPCs they want to save. Giving your players Sophies Choice (http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Sophie%27s%20choice), in my experience, almost always makes for a good scene and you can't trust the Dice Gods to play ball with your plot.

The main target was the local duke, and the PCs (along with some of the more powerful NPCs present) managed to save him. The random element was who was killed as collateral damage when a big part of the roof fell into the feast hall along with the dragon. Also when it used its breath, though by that time a lot of NPCs had fled.
I wouldn't have let the dice decide if there was a particular plot I'd have wanted.

[DKing9114]

Having just played a fairly close session, I'd say start the first few sessions fairly role-play heavy, with fairly easy combat. Particularly this early, combat is a little too chaotic to use as a teaching aid; just three lucky monster rolls, and that first level ranger is bleeding out on the ground. A good role playing or exploration section, however, can do wonders to impress upon players that a) actions will have consequences, and b) your universe isn't terribly concerned that they are the PCs. A lot of the second is on you as the DM, to build and describe the world as more than just things to kill, trade with, or push around, but the first is easy. Is the rogue getting too theft happy? He's going to fail at some point, and having the rest of the party spend most of their gold to bail him out will convince the others to keep him in line. Is the barbarian causing trouble in town, fighting and intimidating the local guards? Why, he might need to meet the Guard Captain (modeled after a Knight or Veteran NPC); spending a good chunk of the session in jail should let the player, at least, know why this happened.

Then, sometime between levels two and four, throw a few deadly encounters at them. Tailor the encounter to make things a little bit easier on the party, but leave enough of a challenge that they have to use tactics, remember AoO, maintain battlefield awareness, and put in some effort to not die. I say levels two to four because most classes gain several class features through these levels, and until that point tactics will be fairly limited.

[Regitnui]

My PCs talk their way out of deadly encounters and almost die to easy ones... Honestly, I'll lean towards Martin just because of their damn fantastic luck when it comes to the combat...

[Socratov]

Character death is part of the game. Some games (like Anima Prime RPG) mention specifically that players can't die without them actively choosing to sacrifice themselves. In dnd it's part of the course and pretty much the reason stuff like resurrection, True resurrection, Reincarnate et. al. exist. Death is a very real part of the game and even reversible.

Now that doesn't mean you have to run a darwinnian process of character generation (http://www.theallguardsmenparty.com/zerg.html), but it doesn't mean that players should ahve plot armour as well. At best you can hope for players to use common sense and to give them ways to escape their fate. At worst they will die and you hope the player will have any meaning to his death. In the end thouhg, it will suck. (http://theangrygm.com/death-sucks/). I know I lost my character to the first group combat in the campaign to a couple of zombies. Thjis was a character I had spend a couple of weeks on an of again buidling, adjusting, readjusting, writing background for, setting out seeds of what my character would consider as goals, and so on. So when my character died beucase my DM couldn't seem to roll below 15 when rolling for the survivor feature of the zombies and I couldn't seem to make a meaningful impact with my weapons I was quite salty that my character died after all the effort I put in it.

And what comes after character death is a natural reaction: either people will clam up and get real careful (warning, this might diminish fun as the party won't take some risks. If they catch you unaware this will mean that the story will come to a halt. A different reaction (and the one I employed after my character death) is that they won't connect as much to their character since they know it can die and that it dieing is a very real possibility. I flat out told the DM that I would not care about the character, nor write any background past making **** up on the fly for 3 sessions to avoid again losing a character which I spent lots of effort on.

It is not just a choice between Tolkien or Martin, it's about figuring out how people deal with death and that their expectations are. Wether the players do it themselves, or weether you do it for you, the pleyers will lose something they invested in. Maybe even invested heavily in. Losing that hurts and will have consequences.

[Kane0]

For those who have been deprived: Martin vs. Tolkien (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XAAp_luluo0).
Thankyou. The moment I read the title this is what I thought of.

[R.Shackleford]

Sigh, everyone seems to always forget the one (or more, maybe) author that has more effect on fantasy and reality than any other writer.

William Shakespeare.

Without this dude, we wouldn't have a lot of the words used today, or at the very least we wouldn't have had them until much much much later.

Plus...



https://cdn.meme.am/instances/65152233.jpg



I don't play fantasy to learn about every little detail of bushes, trees, and pipes.

I also don't play fantasy to recreate a fanfiction of the War of the Rose's.

I'm not saying GRR is bad and I'm not saying JRR didn't help fantasy at one point (though people have screwed that up) but if you want to see the real master of "I'm the main character, I'm not safe" then this is the dude to read.

Character death, PC that is, shouldn't just be a drop of the hat. It should mean something to the player. Now, this could mean the PC is fighting a goblin or a dragon, but that death needs to have an effect on the player and the PC should be engaged in something personal.

Tolkien gives characters too much plot armor and Martin kills for the sake of killing.

[Logosloki]

The only difference between Tolkien and Martin on the subject of death is density of characters. Tolkien wrote a narrative that follows one (then two) parties, whilst Martin writes a narrative that follows Many parties and therefore has created more opportunities.

Martin's characters though are deliciously tragic. I feel Mr Martin's effort into making entertaining tragedies is underrated. Almost every single death in the book are predictable as long as you pay attention. Every character's hubris is worn on their sleeve but their downfalls are as artistic as they are entertaining.

Onto the topic in hand though. The threat of death and death itself should be proportional to the tone of the campaign. With exceptions to people who seem to be writing a tragedy whether they know it or not.

[Specter]

As the AngryDM said: plan fair, play to win. I sit and ponder about a challenge for weeks sometimes, calculating avg damage and chance of failure and etcetcetc. so that it's fair. And when I get to the battlefield, the PCs have to give all they have and adapt, or they will die. And no one's going to feel bad. In combat, I probably follow a more anime-oriented approach.

As for out-of-combat death, it only happens by stupidity. If the PCs know an assassin is hunting them, and even a random tavernkeep warns them about it, and they still want to sleep alone for the night, fine -- what's your next character?

[MrStabby]

Should death always be meaningful?

On the one hand i think players appreciate their deaths more if they are meaningful. On the other hand if you want a real feeling of the world being dangerous then don't stop them from dying on the toilet or collaterally immolated if that's what it takes.

I tend to go towards the lethal end of encounters - usually reasonably well telegraphed when something will be particularly hardcore and it seems to work OK. The plot specific encounters are the only ones that it might be harder to run from/provided with a real incentive to get stuck into. This means that if there is a death it is far more likely to be in an encounter where it is meaningful.

[R.Shackleford]

As the AngryDM said: plan fair, play to win. I sit and ponder about a challenge for weeks sometimes, calculating avg damage and chance of failure and etcetcetc. so that it's fair. And when I get to the battlefield, the PCs have to give all they have and adapt, or they will die. And no one's going to feel bad. In combat, I probably follow a more anime-oriented approach.

As for out-of-combat death, it only happens by stupidity. If the PCs know an assassin is hunting them, and even a random tavernkeep warns them about it, and they still want to sleep alone for the night, fine -- what's your next character?


As a DM, in order to win, the players must be enjoying themselves.

Therefore, their death must have meaning or else there is no enjoyment in PC death that couldn't have been handled in other ways.

[smcmike]

Should death always be meaningful?

This is an excellent question. If players know that death is only a risk when the death would be "meaningful," this creates plot armor in any situation where the death would be pointless and - which is most encounters.

There is a tension here between three models, or perhaps three goals: narrative fiction, realism, and gameplay. In narrative fiction, death should usually have meaning, and meaning is determined by plot and character arcs. In the real world, death is often pointless and stupid, and meaning is applied afterward - the heroes of the story are the ones that happened to live. In games, challenges are important, and the number of potentially challenges in a normal campaign are far higher than fiction can create meaning for, and also high enough that realism would lead to very frequent TPKs.

[Corran]

How do you as player or as a DM view character Death
Somtimes character deaths are funny and fun for everyone (or at least, almost everyone), sometimes they are epic or just dealt in such a way that makes for a very satisfying closure to the chapter of that character, and sometimes (well, most of the times) they are not pleasant. Pleasant or not, character deaths can even contribute to ''the story''.

Character deaths aside, I find that (as a player) I prefer character death to be a real threat, meaning that it has a realistic chance of happening. I dont like playing in a campaign when I know that no matter what, my character will never get it, as this level of predetermination takes a lot from the suspens.
When dming, I prefer the game world to be a dangerous and ''realistic'' place, so character death is always in the cards, but then again, I like to balance that with the expectations of the players regarding this certain topic.

[XmonkTad]

The threat of death and death itself should be proportional to the tone of the campaign. With exceptions to people who seem to be writing a tragedy whether they know it or not.

I agree with this. A campaign needs to be tailored to the players in a lot of ways. No one wants to play a spell caster? Then don't make saving the world contingent on them being able to cast a specific spell.

If players expect, and you want, a humorous campaign, then remember Mel Brooks: tragedy is when I cut my finger, comedy is when you fall down an open manhole and die.

[Anonymouswizard]

Personally, when it comes to PC death, I prefer the removal of the random element. I like what Fate does, where it recommends against character death unless suitable to the story, and one of the benefits to allowing yourself to be taken out early is that you can decide what happens to you, so death is unlikely. When it comes to NPCs, I used to go to any length to save my 'main villain', but after one session where I had to use plot armour I realised how stupid the idea is and just play it fair (although in something like Fate the main villain will opt to be taken out early on if he should survive, making a dramatic or sneaky escape but losing something in exchange), I can always promote a secondary villain (never put all your villains in one battle, unless it's the final one).

However, I have played in a group where death was always possible, but the party never encountered it due to surrendering when forced into a corner or stupidly good social skills ('it's a combat campaign' we were told, so we immediately designed a party with only one focused warrior). Of course, we don't always keep tour end of the deal, especially when we're almost killed when at the Skaven embassy for legitimate reasons (so we killed one guy by stealing the bribe back, but it's a lower body count then if we had died fighting our way out). Actually very few characters died in that game, most fights ended with one side retreating or surrendering, and we manage to stop most of the assassinations. There were a couple of bombings we didn't stop, but we thought that they couldn't manage another after we took away the person who made the detonators.

[IShouldntBehere]

I like the possibility of failure much more than I like than I like death, taken in isolation. Death is simply one form of failure and a rather big one. I think the two tend to get conflated simply because D&D is pretty bad at providing (or at least guiding games towards), non-death modes of failure out of the box.

[JAL_1138]

To continue this tangent, if you look at the Silmarillion instead of LotR then Tolkien is probably more of a killer DM than Martin. Some would-be protagonists get glorious deaths, others get horribly screwed over, and a few were frankly asking for it*, but very few of them make it to the end of their stories alive.

*Feanor and his sons would actually make a lot of sense as a certain sort of PC: reckless, totally indifferent to NPC lives and wants, and obsessed with loot.

Not to mention Tolkien destroyed the setting itself a couple of times. The world was scoured in flame (before the Elves, Men, and Dwarves came to the world, so hard to say what was lost then), Beleriand and Numenor (the primary settings of Quenta Silmarillion and Akallabeth) were both sundered and sank into the sea...

[Specter]

As a DM, in order to win, the players must be enjoying themselves.

Therefore, their death must have meaning or else there is no enjoyment in PC death that couldn't have been handled in other ways.

The 'meaning' in a death such as the one I described is that, if the players do stupid things, they will die. That's the reality of this world and of most worlds in fantasy. The world holds no exception for them, and players would resent me if it did.

The players enjoy themselves much more when there is risk. This is noticeable in a fight where they really have to push and think about how to win, it's a pleasure that comes from the uncertainty, much like gambling: can we kill these guys and survive? In a fairly easy fight, on the other hand, there's no such pleasure, because as soon as combat starts they know they're going to succeed.

If this combat mentality is expanded into the world (i.e. death only through meaning), then the players won't feel challenged, and might even lose interest in the game.

[R.Shackleford]

The 'meaning' in a death such as the one I described is that, if the players do stupid things, they will die. That's the reality of this world and of most worlds in fantasy. The world holds no exception for them, and players would resent me if it did.

The players enjoy themselves much more when there is risk. This is noticeable in a fight where they really have to push and think about how to win, it's a pleasure that comes from the uncertainty, much like gambling: can we kill these guys and survive? In a fairly easy fight, on the other hand, there's no such pleasure, because as soon as combat starts they know they're going to succeed.

If this combat mentality is expanded into the world (i.e. death only through meaning), then the players won't feel challenged, and might even lose interest in the game.

If players do stupid things, that's what HP and plot devices are for

If you have to resort to "you died" then you are being lazy.

Instead of stopping the story (or campaign) the DM should work to make the game fall forward. Punish the players of course, but that doesn't mean they have to have meaningless deaths. Hell, giving a player a meaningless death is letting them off easy for acting stupid.


Really all you did was reward them for being stupid. Now they get to make a new character, split up the old equipment, and still go on the adventure.

Character death either means something or it is useless. Character death isn't a punishment in any way. Even if someone is attached to a character (which problem means they weren't just acting stupid) death isn't the end of that charactwr. People reuse characters all the time.

Edit

The only way character death is a punishment (for doing stupid stuff) is if you are going to tell the player to leave and they can't join for a while.

[Specter]

If players do stupid things, that's what HP and plot devices are for

If you have to resort to "you died" then you are being lazy.

Instead of stopping the story (or campaign) the DM should work to make the game fall forward. Punish the players of course, but that doesn't mean they have to have meaningless deaths. Hell, giving a player a meaningless death is letting them off easy for acting stupid.


Really all you did was reward them for being stupid. Now they get to make a new character, split up the old equipment, and still go on the adventure.

Character death either means something or it is useless. Character death isn't a punishment in any way. Even if someone is attached to a character (which problem means they weren't just acting stupid) death isn't the end of that charactwr. People reuse characters all the time.

Edit

The only way character death is a punishment (for doing stupid stuff) is if you are going to tell the player to leave and they can't join for a while.

That assassin thing was an oversimplification, and probably not the way I'd do it. But the point still stands: in real life, if there were a guy chasing me and I decided to do something stupid like taking a nap, we can agree I'd probably die. So why should an RPG be any different? Isn't that what the overused word 'realism' means?

[R.Shackleford]

That assassin thing was an oversimplification, and probably not the way I'd do it. But the point still stands: in real life, if there were a guy chasing me and I decided to do something stupid like taking a nap, we can agree I'd probably die. So why should an RPG be any different? Isn't that what the overused word 'realism' means?

As a DM?

Many many many reasons a PC won't die there, you just have to not be lazy/basic.

Assassin can double dip. Get money from the contract, say it's done and all that and send in "proof". That will teach (insert name) to not under pay the assassin's guild.

Plus get money from the PC's family by taking the PC hostage.

The assassin can be flawed.

Therkla is a great example of this.

[smcmike]

Avoiding character death in situations where character death is the obvious conclusion breaks suspension of disbelief and can lead to escalation by the players.

[Specter]

As a DM?

Many many many reasons a PC won't die there, you just have to not be lazy/basic.

Assassin can double dip. Get money from the contract, say it's done and all that and send in "proof". That will teach (insert name) to not under pay the assassin's guild.

Plus get money from the PC's family by taking the PC hostage.

The assassin can be flawed. Therkla is a great example of this.

Funny, following a specific ideal of an NPC is being lazy now, but adding a safety net to make up for someone's stupidity isn't.

The assassin's objective, for whatever reason, is to kill a PC in this scenario, nothing else. If you want to retcon his actions a posteriori that's up to you, but to me that's straight up treating people as babies i.e. bad DMing. I know this is a fact because all my players have been in campaigns where DMs handwaved death (sometimes even I did it, mea culpa), and they hated it.

If you or your players can't handle death because of your own, specific actions, then don't even make a character sheet, just do whatever you want and get away with it.

[R.Shackleford]

Avoiding character death in situations where character death is the obvious conclusion breaks suspension of disbelief and can lead to escalation by the players.

No, it shows that your plot/story isn't a stereotype and can lead to players being surprised that they have a DM who isn't lazy.

Unless the death of the PCs mean something, there really is no reason for PCs to die. Especially if you are trying to use death as a means of punishment.

[smcmike]

No, it shows that your plot/story isn't a stereotype and can lead to players being surprised that they have a DM who isn't lazy.


Realism = stereotype? That's what I'm hearing, and it's a silly generalization. Employing a deus ex machina every time a player comes close to death seems lazy to me.



Unless the death of the PCs mean something, there really is no reason for PCs to die. Especially if you are trying to use death as a means of punishment.

The problem here is the "punishment," not the death. I agree that DM's shouldn't use death as a punishment, because I think DM's shouldn't generally be in the punishment business. Death should sometimes be a possible consequence, though, unless you are playing some strange game where FIGHTING DEADLY MONSTERS isn't the primary activity in the daily life of the party.

[Lance Tankmen]

I've read everyone's reply and I have to say if I knew my DM didn't kill any PC then why the heck would I not try to kill and king and take his throne. ? Or do you DMs who don't kill PC's also have unkillable npcs?

[Logosloki]

I've read everyone's reply and I have to say if I knew my DM didn't kill any PC then why the heck would I not try to kill and king and take his throne. ? Or do you DMs who don't kill PC's also have unkillable npcs?

For me that falls under "players writing a tragedy".

[R.Shackleford]

Realism = stereotype? That's what I'm hearing, and it's a silly generalization. Employing a deus ex machina every time a player comes close to death seems lazy to me.



The problem here is the "punishment," not the death. I agree that DM's shouldn't use death as a punishment, because I think DM's shouldn't generally be in the punishment business. Death should sometimes be a possible consequence, though, unless you are playing some strange game where FIGHTING DEADLY MONSTERS isn't the primary activity in the daily life of the party.

I'm sorry, are we talking about real world or a game in which a DM is running a fantasy plot? Using the excuse of realism is lazy and doesn't adress the point of anything that has been brought up.

The fact that an assassin is after you in the first place is so far out of the realm of realism that it's not even up for debate. I mean, when's the last time anyone at your table was important/rich/"lucky" enough to be running away from a hired assassin? Yeah, we already broke realism right there.

Use your brain a little and have the game fall forward.

Death is the laziest way to end a situation. Especially in the context that was brought up of "punishment for doing stupid things".


Character dies in battle? Ok, that can happen, though I prefer not to be lazy about it and have the party's defeat actually mean something were the plot can fall forward.

They become slaves, they get sent to a prison work camp, they have all their things taken and they must traverse the city while naked and not get caught for indecent exposure (because not all fights/muggings end in ppl death), or maybe they are taken back to be used as some sort of sacrifice so *Big demon* can come to the material plane?

Unless it is meaningful, which it can be in battle and some situations, PC death is the laziest way to deal with a PC.

Just offing a character without meaning is a bad DM quality.

[j_spencer93]

I prefer Tolkien and right my campaigns more akin to his writings. However my players twist into into something closer to Martin's, and always die by some bad decision i could have never saw them making while writing the campaign.

[Regitnui]

The fact that an assassin is after you in the first place is so far out of the realm of realism that it's not even up for debate. I mean, when's the last time anyone at your table was important/rich/"lucky" enough to be running away from a hired assassin? Yeah, we already broke realism right there.

For my players, (all level 2) there are a number of ways I can justify assassins entirely in character;

- The cleric is an up-and-coming rival to the current head priest of the home town, where the higher-ups have already expressed approval of the player.
- The monk cheated his way into and out of an order of monks who guard powerful dark artefacts. He's already gotten one item that may cause them to come looking when they hear about it being used Instead of hidden.
- The barbarian is (about to) foil a cult leader who plans to use him as a sacrificial offering for [spoiler redacted]. The cult leader survives the upcoming fight.
- The sorcerer has abilities that may cut into the profits of the local shipping syndicate. Also, he's a changeling, and you can't trust changelings.

Honestly, from about level 5 in Eberron, you're locally famous enough that the rich and powerful may start using you in their schemes. And if one of their rivals wants to use the party, there's a motivation for killing or hamstringing the party right there. When do you think a character can be targeted by assassins? When they match the CR of the assassin stat block in the MM?

[smcmike]

I'm sorry, are we talking about real world or a game in which a DM is running a fantasy plot? Using the excuse of realism is lazy and doesn't adress the point of anything that has been brought up.

You keep saying "lazy," as if you have some context to make that judgement. You don't. Yes, a lazy DM might throw realism in as an excuse for not bothering to balance his encounters, or for stupid and unnecessary character deaths. That doesn't mean that a certain level of realism is an unworthy goal. Fantasy plots work best when they bear some relationship with experienced reality.



Use your brain a little and have the game fall forward.

Falling forward is generally a good idea. Sometimes it doesn't make sense. If the players get the sense that their players can't die, it becomes unmoored - a free fall.


Death is the laziest way to end a situation. Especially in the context that was brought up of "punishment for doing stupid things".


I believe you were the first to use the word "punishment." There is a difference between a punishment for doing stupid things and a consequence.



Just offing a character without meaning is a bad DM quality.

The thing is, I don't totally disagree. I've seen plenty of bad character deaths that left a sour taste at the table. Railroading characters into super-deadly encounters or punishing characters are both bad. I don't like games where the model is a tightrope walk with death on all sides.

But sometimes characters die. It happens. Maybe the dividing line is that a good DM provides meaning.

[MrStabby]

The bit I am still having difficulty with as a DM is consequences a long way down the line.

My most recent example was a raid on a minotaur temple. I had designed the complex to have a system of alarms and some pretty high powered reinforcements so I saw the fun as being a combination of stealth and speed to avoid engaging inappropriate enemies.

The issue was that the PCs made no plan for escape. No horses, no boat, no hiding place, no flight, invisibility or pass without trace prepared (the NPC commissioning the raid had basically told them that hanging around would be certain death but a quick raid might work). About 3 sessions after they made the mistake of skipping over their exit strategy they were fleeing the temple with the artefact with overwhelming force behind them and trying to outrun minotaur.

I have no worries about setting up encounters I consider fair and the skills and dice determining what happens. The PCs had fought minotaurs before, they had NPC warning, but still the death of 3 of the 4 players seemed unfair simply because their significant blunder happened so long in the past.

I find it much easier to allow bad things to happen to the PCs when the bad things follow after the causes of bad things. The delay makes it seem so arbitrary. I kept the sessions going as I hoped that the PCs would find a creative solution I had overlooked.

[Specter]

I'm sorry, are we talking about real world or a game in which a DM is running a fantasy plot? Using the excuse of realism is lazy and doesn't adress the point of anything that has been brought up.

The fact that an assassin is after you in the first place is so far out of the realm of realism that it's not even up for debate. I mean, when's the last time anyone at your table was important/rich/"lucky" enough to be running away from a hired assassin? Yeah, we already broke realism right there.

Use your brain a little and have the game fall forward.

Death is the laziest way to end a situation. Especially in the context that was brought up of "punishment for doing stupid things".


Character dies in battle? Ok, that can happen, though I prefer not to be lazy about it and have the party's defeat actually mean something were the plot can fall forward.

They become slaves, they get sent to a prison work camp, they have all their things taken and they must traverse the city while naked and not get caught for indecent exposure (because not all fights/muggings end in ppl death), or maybe they are taken back to be used as some sort of sacrifice so *Big demon* can come to the material plane?

Unless it is meaningful, which it can be in battle and some situations, PC death is the laziest way to deal with a PC.

Just offing a character without meaning is a bad DM quality.

Come on R., now you're being lazy in your answers. "Fall forward! Laziness!" Really?

The point still stands: if you're in a deadly situation (in or out of combat), and you don't act right on it, or take it for granted, bad stuff will happen, which may or may not involve death. That's the way of the world, and saying DnD is "fantasy" to counter this is neither here nor there. Even in fantasy, people's behavior mirrors people and society in real life.

Since you're so hung up on this assassin example (and saying it's far from happening is well, laughable, because there's a class called Assassin and an NPC called Assassin and Assassin's and Thieves' Guilds all over the place), let's go with another one: the players investigate and find a blue dragon's lair up in Faerun, and decide to go there at level 4. The dungeon makes it clear that it's overpowered to them, and the threats they encounter severely dent them. But they keep on truckin' and eventually face off one of the dragons. Would you like to be spared out of your own stupidity? Because me and my players, for one, wouldn't.

And as was said, death should not be punishment, but a consequence of PC's actions, because their actions should impact the world, even if it's against themselves. Otherwise it's not DMing but babysitting.