| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The other day I had my second PC death since I started running Pathfinder (which was less than a year ago). The first time it was during the final encounter of the adventure and was simply a matter of not dodging the boss's fire breath and taking too much damage. Sad, but a fitting end for a PC that had already survived countless challenges. The second time, however... well, it raised some questions.
The players had just started a voyage to a colony on a new continent. One of my players, who I will refer to as Frank, has a history of doing reckless things in tabletop (mostly in my Pokemon conversion, which is generally sillier and less dangerous). Frank and the other players had been battling draugr that boarded them from a Ghost Ship while several of the crew members engaged the ship with cannons on the lower deck. Frank and Alli were fighting the draugr back across their boarding planks while Mark and Zoey supported them from behind with magic and ranged attacks. Frank and Alli has just boarded the ghost ship and killed several draugrr there when...
Me: As the draugr falls, you here yet another boom of The Old Paulina's (their ship's) cannons, following by a loud crack from beneath your feet. The ghost ship lurches beneath your feet, and you hear the sound of rushing water.
Zoey: The ship is sinking! You both need to get back over here, now!
Alli bolts back across the gangplank
Frank: No, I want to loot the ship. I need to see if there's anything on the lower deck.
Mark: Are you serious?
Frank: Guys, it's fine, my mask let's me hold my breath for 40 rounds.
Alli: Frank it doesn't MATTER. A sinking ship creates suctions that will DRAG YOU DOWN WITH IT. The water pressure will kill you before suffocation does.
Frank: It'll be fine.
Frank kills the last draugr and goes below deck and searches some barrels. The water is at his ankles when he does, and keeps rising as he searches. He finds nothing but damp powder, moldy food, and one pouch of gold coins.
Me: Now the water is past your waste.
Frank: I head back up to the top deck.
Me: The water is almost to your shoulders by the time you make it to the top deck.
Frank: The captain's quarters is on the top deck, right?
Me:...yes, yes it is.
Frank: I'm going to go search it.
Me: As you reach the doors to the captain's quarters, water is starting to come over the edge of the deck and splashes around your feet (this was his last chance, if he bolted to the edge the group could have tried to throw him a line and he MIGHT have made it.
Frank Enter the captain's quarters to search them.
And then I told him his character was dragged below the surface with the ship. He wanted to play out all the rounds of breath he had with his mask, but I told him regardless of what he found there was no way he was surviving. His character was drowned.
Zoey: My character begins to weep profusely.
After this, I told him the point that would have been his last chance, and he complained that I didn't tell him it was his last chance. Obviously, if I had, he would have turned away and possibly survived, but if I just told my players every time a certain action might get them killed, there would be no danger.
To what extent is it okay to jump in and give players a solution or warn them of death? I had a GM once that would let people make Idea (INT) or Common Sense (Wis) checks when they weren't sure of what to do. This might be necessary sometimes because some things would be obvious if the player were actually in the environment themselves: throwing that fire bomb in tower made of Ice is probably not a good idea, while using that Shocking Grasp on the water-covered floor of the sewer would stop all of those rat swarms in their tracks.
Where do you draw the line?
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think Int/Wis checks might be good for something kind of vague "Would it be a good idea to enter this strange woman's home when she invites us?" kind of stuff, but "The water is up to your shoulders below decks, the ship is sinking fast, and the suction will drag you down when it goes" is pretty clear cut.
Though ships don't really generate that much suction when they go down, and it's not a sustained suction (i.e. suction ends at water's surface). I don't see why he couldn't have got back up to the surface with 6.5 minutes of waterbreathing and however long his Con mod lets him hold his breath afterwards.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think Int/Wis checks might be good for something kind of vague "Would it be a good idea to enter this strange woman's home when she invites us?" kind of stuff, but "The water is up to your shoulders below decks, the ship is sinking fast, and the suction will drag you down when it goes" is pretty clear cut.
Though ships don't really generate that much suction when they go down, and it's not a sustained suction (i.e. suction ends at water's surface). I don't see why he couldn't have got back up to the surface with 6.5 minutes of waterbreathing and however long his Con mod lets him hold his breath afterwards.
I agree about the ship, if he's in the captain's quarters as it goes down, he should have plenty of opportunity to make it out. As far as i know, sinking ships maintain a steady rate of "fall" once underwater. I will say however, lol, your friend sounds like greed overloaded his sense ;)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think the problem is that you are trying to draw a line of what is physically possible in a world of dragons, magic and elves. This becomes a real issue as the game progresses to higher levels and the casters are masters of reality, while the non-casters are victims of it.
In the 1st edition DMG there was a section written by Gygax about getting a saving throw against a dragons fire breath (I think while tied-up or sleeping) and he basically said, "Sure. Why not?" It is a fantasy world, and a game made to have fun... anything can happen.
Finally, physics don't work the same way in the game world as they do in the real world, especially where magic is concerned. Shocking grasp doesn't obey resistance and conductivity laws, nor does fireball act like a fire might.
PS Non-salt water is a fairly lousy conductor, and ice can be super strong anyway.
Sorry to go off on that tangent, but to answer the original question, I will often allow a character to roll a wisdom or intelligence check when the player is going to do something stupid or forgetful. Also, I don't expect my players to remember everything that happened at a game session a month ago, when it was just yesterday for their characters.
EDIT: One last thing, in the movie about the Navy diver starring Cuba Gooding Jr. he pulls off a feat of holding his breath to escape a sinking ship, and it plays a pivotal role in the story. Seems like the perfect thing to happen in a Pathfinder game.
I was GM in a LARP troupe for while that had a policy of 'three warnings' for potentially lethal scenes. Now full disclosure time, my scenarios almost always had to be 'three warninged', with the first warning before the scenario even started but a lot of that was the venue itself was fairly lethal.
That said, had I been running this scene the point at which Alli mentioned the physical impossiblities of surviving the situation whould have been when I looked over at the other guy & said " was your third warning. At this point, if you continue your action, the only chance of you dying effectively requires divine intervantion."
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well, regardless of the real world physics of the situation, the damage has been done, I can't go back and reverse a decision like that.
Though, if he was caught in the captains quarters, and the ship was sinking, this was how I broke it down mentally:
The ship would sink down and he would float to the ceiling of the quarters He would have to swim down faster than the ship was sinking to be able to get through the door and then avoid the potential suction of the ship and survive the pressure he would be experiencing at that point. I have no idea how quickly a ship would sink underwater; the books just say the ship has the sinking condition for 10 rounds before it's considered sunk, which I followed. I feel like I was already fairly forgiving with the amount of time it would have taken for him to search below deck and the amount of water he would be wading through as it was. I never thought one of the players would stay on the ship for any amount of time after it started sinking (which shows how much I know) so the next 10 rounds were improvised and I didn't have time to research the true facts about sinking ships. I vaguely recalled a mythbusters episode that confirmed sinking ships created suction, and two of my other players seemed confidant that was true, so that's what I went with.
I disagree about Fireball and Shocking Grasp though, Fergie. Just because the spell description doesn't include fire and electricity physics in it doesn't mean they don't operate that way. It's up to the GM to decide what happens when a player tries to use a spell in non-standard ways. As it is, Shocking Grasp gains a bonus to hit if the enemy is wearing metal armor, so I see no reason why water wouldn't be able to conduct the damage if Shocking Grasp is also electro-magnetic. I also have no idea what the makeup of the water in that sewer was, since none of us had ever been outside the metropolis. For all I knew, it was right next to a large body of salt water.
My group occasionally refers to Wisdom as a check to get us out of situations. This might be if we're completely stuck in a situation, or we're forgetting that there's a gas leak in the cave we're in as we're hefting our wand of fireball, etc. I think it's fair.
I am one of two GMs in my group. The other is a lot more forgiving than I am - I don't think we've ever had a character death that's stuck with him. He has this sense of heroism that pretty much mandates a PC should only die in an exciting, important way. The last time a character "died" under this GM, he was ambushed by large spiders while sleeping in a tree, and although he was very dead by hp (by the player of that character's own admission), our cure light wounds somehow got to him in time. I'm not really like that; I almost party wiped my group the last time I GM'd on a more or less random encounter. Because of the other GM's mentality, this can cause ripples, and it did: that almost-party wipe led to us discontinuing the campaign we were running (though truthfully, it acted more as a catalyst than a sole source).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The Mythbusters episode in question is the one where they sunk a boat like three times and none of them pulled Adam under.
Either that or it pulled him a couple of feet under and then he just bobbed back up.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I was GM in a LARP troupe for while that had a policy of 'three warnings' for potentially lethal scenes. Now full disclosure time, my scenarios almost always had to be 'three warninged', with the first warning before the scenario even started but a lot of that was the venue itself was fairly lethal.
That said, had I been running this scene the point at which Alli mentioned the physical impossiblities of surviving the situation whould have been when I looked over at the other guy & said " was your third warning. At this point, if you continue your action, the only chance of you dying effectively requires divine intervantion."
For me, I think this would be a bit too much. He's been warned in game and out of character by the other members of the group, that's more than enough. If I tell him he has 0% chance of surviving something before he tries it, he isn't going to try it because he knows the outcome. That's metagaming. He knows as a player he has 0 chance of surviving but his character has no such confirmation. If he's going to try something reckless because of greed and ignore the warnings of his teammates than he has to face the consequences.
This was basically the last straw after a series of similar reckless actions that would have resulted in death had i not stepped in and told him so. He got it into his head that he could try whatever he wanted and never worry about consequences because he assumed I would tell him before he risked dying.
The last time he had been about to drop 40 feet from his lasso, hanging directly over a statue of the sun (with sharp stone prongs). He had 16 hp left and wasn't patient enough to just ask the archeologist for rope. I basically acted for his character and told him to ask for more rope.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Its a friggate, not the titanic. Its not going to suck him down, and once its under water it stops doing that. He can just swim out.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I thought Mythbusters actually disproved this?
Wait, here it is: Episode 11
There is still some debate based on how big the ship is and where the unfortunate soul is standing on the ship.
As for him having to swim faster that the ship was sinking in order to escape it - I am not sure it would work that way with (proceed with caution here) real world physics.
For instance, would you have to move faster than the car you are inside of in order to move from the back seat to the front? He would already be moving at the same speed as the ship, I do not believe he would have to move faster than the ship as he is already moving at the ships speed.
The Mythbusters episode in question is the one where they sunk a boat like three times and none of them pulled Adam under.
Either that or it pulled him a couple of feet under and then he just bobbed back up.
That's my bad then. It's been awhile since I watched Mythbusters.
Clearly I made a mistake with the real world physics with regards to sucking him down, but I do stand by the belief that him remaining underwater and searching the captain's quarters (which he would have done) would have gotten him to a depth where the quick change in pressure would be enough to kill him. I haven't the slightest clue how quickly a ship sinks once it's underwater, to I had to improvise this and this is what I decided.
Despite the physics being a myth, the whole group was operating under the belief that this was how it worked.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Clearly I made a mistake with the real world physics with regards to sucking him down, but I do stand by the belief that him remaining underwater and searching the captain's quarters (which he would have done) would have gotten him to a depth where the quick change in pressure would be enough to kill him. I haven't the slightest clue how quickly a ship sinks once it's underwater, to I had to improvise this and this is what I decided.
Despite the physics being a myth, the whole group was operating under the belief that this was how it worked.
At the end of the day, you dropped plenty of hints, physics aside. It is safe to say that there were lessons learned, such as hanging around a sinking ship is generally a bad idea simply for the sake of greed. As a rule, most people want to avoid inserting too much real world into a game, the sinking ship for example, but that is situational usually and not the rule. Just like falling damage for a character who drops from a great distance, one that would threaten a fatal experience. In certain situations, we know some physics is in the background, most of us generally don't worry about it because they are a rare situation.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well, regardless of the real world physics of the situation, the damage has been done, I can't go back and reverse a decision like that.
Why not? Just say “Hey I discussed this with some other DM’s and I have decided to reverse my ruling. Your PC lived. Next time, however, be sure to carefully heed my warnings.”
I think the problem is that you are trying to draw a line of what is physically possible in a world of dragons, magic and elves. This becomes a real issue as the game progresses to higher levels and the casters are masters of reality, while the non-casters are victims of it.
In the 1st edition DMG there was a section written by Gygax about getting a saving throw against a dragons fire breath (I think while tied-up or sleeping) and he basically said, "Sure. Why not?" It is a fantasy world, and a game made to have fun... anything can happen.
\
Right, we’re in a world with frequent deific intervention, and thus something could happen to save you. Of course, assuming such a large minus that a nat 20 is required could be reasonable.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
All real world physics aside, why would the gods intervene to save someone who has shown an obvious reckless disregard for their own safety on multiple occasions to no purpose?
At the end of the day, you dropped plenty of hints, physics aside. It is safe to say that there were lessons learned, such as hanging around a sinking ship is generally a bad idea simply for the sake of greed. As a rule, most people want to avoid inserting too much real world into a game, the sinking ship for example, but that is situational usually and not the rule. Just like falling damage for a character who drops from a great distance, one that would threaten a fatal experience. In certain situations, we know some physics is in the background, most of us generally don't worry about it because they are a rare situation.Clearly I made a mistake with the real world physics with regards to sucking him down, but I do stand by the belief that him remaining underwater and searching the captain's quarters (which he would have done) would have gotten him to a depth where the quick change in pressure would be enough to kill him. I haven't the slightest clue how quickly a ship sinks once it's underwater, to I had to improvise this and this is what I decided.
Despite the physics being a myth, the whole group was operating under the belief that this was how it worked.
Frankly, I was caught off guard by the desire to search the ship. My description of this event was intended to mean "Okay guys, you won the battle, you can act out of turn now" not "You have X rounds to loot the ship". I'm hesitant about employing sea monsters in this adventure because I don't want to run the risk of the player's ship sinking and then the entire party dying.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I read your transcript, and I don't think you gave him any warning at all. He stated that he had 40 rounds of under water action available, and you never contradicted him. You just said how deep the water was (waist, shoulders, etc.) and before he was under water for even a single round, you declared that it was an inescapable death trap.
I read your transcript, and I don't think you gave him any warning at all. He stated that he had 40 rounds of under water action available, and you never contradicted him. You just said how deep the water was (waist, shoulders, etc.) and before he was under water for even a single round, you declared that it was an inescapable death trap.
I was operating under the (now shown to be false) belief that a sinking ship would drag him beneath the water to the point where he would be killed by water pressure. The party believed the same and warned him in and out of character that it was going to happen. If it were true, that would mean that, being inside the captain's quarters and too far away for someone to throw him a lifeline, as soon as he got underwater the ship would drag him down and kill him.
I acknowledge that I was wrong about the science, but if what I believed at the time was right than I don't believe he would have been able to escape.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well, regardless of the real world physics of the situation, the damage has been done, I can't go back and reverse a decision like that.
Why the heck not? Is it several games past since the incident or something?
What you did was tantamount to "you take an arrow to the neck and die" or "rocks fall, everyone dies." You not only owe him his character, you owe him an apology as well.
I agree that you gave him ample warning, but you made a mistake and are now being stubborn about the whole affair. I don't see how that is going to improve the game for anyone. I would NEVER hold a player to a character death due to a mistake that I had made.
Was it more fun for all involved that the PC died in these conditions ?
If yes, you did it right.
This. This is how every GM should gauge their games (not just character deaths). Based on what you said about the player's attitude afterwards, you didn't do so well, Lemon. I sincerely hope you learn from this experience (though you don't even sound remorseful, sadly).
Why not? Just say “Hey I discussed this with some other DM’s and I have decided to reverse my ruling. Your PC lived. Next time, however, be sure to carefully heed my warnings.”
This is probably how you should go about handling it. Not only does it make everyone happy, it may well prevent similar problems in the future.
Well, regardless of the real world physics of the situation, the damage has been done, I can't go back and reverse a decision like that.Why the heck not? Is it several games past since the incident or something?
What you did was tantamount to "you take an arrow to the neck and die" or "rocks fall, everyone dies." You not only owe him his character, you owe him an apology as well.
I agree that you gave him ample warning, but you made a mistake and are now being stubborn about the whole affair. I don't see how that is going to improve the game for anyone. I would NEVER hold a player to a character death due to a mistake that I had made.
Was it more fun for all involved that the PC died in these conditions ?
If yes, you did it right.
This. This is how every GM should gauge their games (not just character deaths). Based on what you said about the player's attitude afterwards, you didn't do so well, Lemon. I sincerely hope you learn from this experience (though you don't even sound remorseful, sadly).
Why not? Just say “Hey I discussed this with some other DM’s and I have decided to reverse my ruling. Your PC lived. Next time, however, be sure to carefully heed my warnings.”This is probably how you should go about handling it. Not only does it make everyone happy, it may well prevent similar problems in the future.
I actually sent him a text to that effect shortly after my last post, giving him the option of keeping the old character but losing soem of his cheaper items he had to shed in order to swim to safety (he rolled a new character since the session so he might be more interested in playing that one, I don't know).
Fun is important but when a player does something I believe would kill them, especially something done out of petty greed, I'm going to let it happen. This turned out to not be the case, but I am (as suggested) going to let him know what trouble this can get him into in the future.
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think it's mostly the player's fault.
He was warned about the dangers of suction; everyone saw it coming. Screw real-world physics; this is fantasy, and in fantasy ships apparently cause suction. It was dramatically foreshadowed; all the players at that time accepted that in fantasy physics, ships can suck you down. So the question is: is 40 rounds of water-breathing sufficient to swim back up again?
Well, maybe it is... I think it'd be better to just define difficulties than say "no chance to survive". The difficulties could be really steep, but a sufficiently superhumanly heroic PC might succeed.
So partially, I think you should've given him a chance, albeit a pretty small one. So why do I think it's mostly the player's fault?
He should've inquired about the odds. He was overconfident, didn't ask just how dangerous the suction would be. He just assumed that 40 rounds would suffice, without asking how hard it would be to swim up. That's hubris.
If he asked, let him make a K:Nature, P:Sailor, Swim or Survival (15) check, and on success tell him about the difficulty of escaping the sinking ship. Then he can make an informed gamble.
If he doesn't succeed at the check to know about the danger, tell him "you don't know how dangerous it's going to be, just that it will be", and then it's up to him whether to take the blind risk.
---
TL;DR - the player was aware of the risk, decided to do it anyway because he was overconfident. Didn't bother to ask just how dangerous it would be.
Instead of doing a, "That never happened," sort of thing. You could turn it into an adventure. Maybe an angry sea god or goddess was angered over his greed and desire to rob their ghost ship that happened to be carrying one of the deity's most cherished artifacts. Now, the other PCs have to go to the bottom of the sea and help Frank escape.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Fun is important but when a player does something I believe would kill them, especially something done out of petty greed, I'm going to let it happen. This turned out to not be the case, but I am (as suggested) going to let him know what trouble this...
Sounds like you're handling the situation fine then. Aside from falling for the "sinking myth" you strike me as a rather capable GM. Knowing when to put your foot down while keeping things fun for all is a big part of the job. Also, knowing when a mistake was made, and what needs to be done to make up for it, is part of what makes a good GM into a great GM. I've met far too many GMs who were unwilling to compromise, even when their behavior was killing the game for their players (I've also seen players do this to their GM, sadly).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What Frank and I decided was that, as the players were set to arrive at at a group of islands the following day (their last stop before a long stretch of open ocean) Frank's character managed to grab a large piece of flostam on the surface and paddle after them, and he's going to arrive at the island all ragged and half dead and there will be a heartwarming scene.
I'm sure that will do much for the in-game mood/drama. I can just imagine him paddling up on a piece of driftwood, clamoring up onto shore, then thrusting his fist in the air in victory, from which dangles the small bag of gold coins for his peers to see (who will all call him crazy before moving on). :D
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
What Frank and I decided was that, as the players were set to arrive at at a group of islands the following day (their last stop before a long stretch of open ocean) Frank's character managed to grab a large piece of flostam on the surface and paddle after them, and he's going to arrive at the island all ragged and half dead and there will be a heartwarming scene.
Horray! Another life saved by the Paizo message boards!
Is there anything we can't do?
Seriously though, I think that is a fine way to handle it. Frank seems to have gone down with the ship but comes up later to everyone's amazement. Classic.
I think you handled it OK.
When I run a game where the PC is doing something both dumb and potentially lethal (like looting the captain's quarters when the ship is sinking and the water is coming over the deck), AND I'm feeling charitable, I'll say something like, "Make a Wisdom check. The DC is 5." Telling the player that the DC is "5" should be another clue. If the PC makes the check, I'll say, "You've got a gut feeling that this is a very bad idea."
If the PC then does it anyway and dies, I won't feel any guilt at all.
A wisdom based stat check for avoiding stupid stuff maybe skinned as the PC having a sense of foreboding about a certain course of action would definitely be appropriate.
If the PC wants to avoid listening to that voice in his head telling him his course of action is stupid then fine after all we all ignore our better judgment at times and PCs should be no different.
I'd avoid it being like a total crutch for the PCs because sometimes intuition does fail you but adding on an optional ability to avoid doing stupid stuff.
In short sometimes it's appropriate for PCs to die or even die due to negligence but I generally prefer for most PC death to be actually be interesting or advance the narrative.
|
|
Keeping in mind that part of the OP's original background was that said person has a history of reckless behavior. Reckless behavior tells me that such an individual will most likely perish by his own actions/choices. I would advise that you have a brief sit down and explain that although all players have freedom of choice, that does not mean they always have freedom from consequence. Just my two cents.
|
Only thing I would do is, simulate the pressure and give him a chance to try to swim out, albeit fictional one. Just so he feels he tried to escape at least.
You should be happy that you don't have sensitive players. I recently killed a character in PFS and I feel sorry for it even tho I believe I did it right. Player's blew in my face after the scenario.
Sometimes, character death happens and everyone is guilty for it.
I liked times when sandboxy style was mainstream and no one complains to GM after death of his character . Big Lemon on-fly judgement seems fair and appropiate. Players should know know the border between cinematic actions and dumbness.
Wow.
Lemon, you did it. It's over. Move on. Going back and giving a "do over" sets a precedent that you are likely to have to live by in any future PC death situation. There are far worse things in this game than getting a reputation of being a GM in which deadly situations are actually potentially deadly.
As far as real world physics is concerned, going into the Captain's quarters to perform a search on a ship that is literally going underwater as you do so is pretty much a death wish. How long did he intend to search as the ship sank into the depths?
I have no problem at all with how you played it. Of course no character of mine would be so foolish as to assume they could do what this player did.
Should you have played it out round by round? Maybe. Not that big a deal in my opinion. You gave ample warning. So did the other players. Chalk it up to a learning experience for the player, a chance to prove that your GM style is legitimately deadly if the player is reckless, and an opportunity for the other players to have some ammo for Frank in the future when he does something equally foolish.
|
|
I can see both sides of this.
I once had a DM stop the game and say, 'You're going to die and I can't be bothered to play through it.' Yet it was just a room full of baddies that I thought I could take! Even if I may have been wrong, I'd like a chance to beat the odds or die trying!
On the other hand, if I were to try and import real-world physics into PF, my first choice would be the Darwin Awards. Sometimes a player gets his PC killed in such a stupid, foolish way that it benefits the rest of Humanity (or Halflingity, or whatever) that they are no longer alive to breed!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What Frank and I decided was that, as the players were set to arrive at at a group of islands the following day (their last stop before a long stretch of open ocean) Frank's character managed to grab a large piece of flostam on the surface and paddle after them, and he's going to arrive at the island all ragged and half dead and there will be a heartwarming scene.
Outstanding! Excellent choice, sir!
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
I read your transcript, and I don't think you gave him any warning at all. He stated that he had 40 rounds of under water action available, and you never contradicted him. You just said how deep the water was (waist, shoulders, etc.) and before he was under water for even a single round, you declared that it was an inescapable death trap.I was operating under the (now shown to be false) belief that a sinking ship would drag him beneath the water to the point where he would be killed by water pressure. The party believed the same and warned him in and out of character that it was going to happen. If it were true, that would mean that, being inside the captain's quarters and too far away for someone to throw him a lifeline, as soon as he got underwater the ship would drag him down and kill him.
I acknowledge that I was wrong about the science, but if what I believed at the time was right than I don't believe he would have been able to escape.
I'm happy that you're bringing the character back, and I'm not writing here simply to argue with you. I'm writing to make an important point about information in game.
First, the source of information is important.
Characters told Frank, "The ship is sinking! You both need to get back over here, now!" and, "Are you serious?" Quite reasonable statements, but Frank clearly believed that his character would be safe because of his mask.
A player said, "A sinking ship creates suctions that will DRAG YOU DOWN WITH IT." The player made a statement about game mechanics, not the GM. It also happened to be an incorrect statement. Why should Frank give that statement any credence? It was not backed up by the GM.
Frank said, "Guys, it's fine, my mask let's me hold my breath for 40 rounds." and the GM did not contradict him, so he proceeded to stay with the ship as it went under water.
If the GM had said, "Your mask won't help," or, "A sinking ship creates suctions that will drag you down with it," or anything to make him believe that his verbalized strategy of 'I have 40 rounds safe after the ship sinks' would be ineffective and instead lead to death, he would have known to change his course of action.
When players make poor decisions, it is not necessarily incumbent upon a GM to correct them. For example, I'm happy to let someone swing away with an ineffective weapon against DR, or cast mind-effecting spells on zombies. Sure, it's a poor tactical decision, but it's neither a matter of certain life or death, nor a matter of privileged information.
"When the ship goes under you will immediately die." is privileged information that exists only in the head of the GM. It's not common knowledge like, "If you jump off the 3000 foot cliff you will die." And, it's not information contained in a Pathfinder book. As GM's, we are obligated to dispense certain information, or the players have no access to it.
For example, we are obligated to tell the players all relevant and readily accessible information about an encounter. You wouldn't tell a group of players, "When you arrive in the clearing, there's a kobold standing in the middle. Roll initiative." (The players roll, get high initiatives, take their turns attempting to speak with the kobold, and finally shooting him to death with arrows.) "The other 40 kobold archers, standing in right formation behind him, let loose a volley of arrows at you while shouting, 'They killed the General!' Clearly, if the characters wandered into a clearing containing 41 kobolds, and you told them there was 1 kobold, you haven't met your obligation as a GM to relay information.
Now, there are plenty of things a GM isn't going to blab, like the identity of mysterious villains, the location of sought-after objects, the strengths and weaknesses of enemies, etc. And, generally speaking, GM's make decisions about informing or not informing players without difficulty or even hesitation. We all judge, from experience and instinct, what ought to be disclosed.
Second, the stakes are important.
There is a second factor, however - certain life or death. When a player must decide between "cake or death" it's important that the word "death" not be unclear! "Cake or pie?" "Cake or go under water?" or even "Cake or get stabbed?" is simply not clear enough. It is incumbent upon the GM to be explicit when dealing with matters of inescapable death.
With nearly any other stakes, the story will go on. It may be a somewhat different story, but the character that represents a large investment of time and emotional energy on the part of the player continues to take part. Character death is an exception to that, and therefore merits additional caution.
Great post, Blueluck!
That is true. I'll keep sources in mind for the future.
My thoughts on all of this:
1) I sometimes allow or call for a "gut check" in my games, which is an Int+Wis check to get a sense of whether something is a good or bad idea, or to get a clue as to what should be done next. I usually set the DC to 5, 10, 15, or 20 depending upon how obvious the answer appears to be.
2) In this case, I would not call for a gut check, but if the player asked to take one, I'd allow it.
3) After the player's companions argued that he was likely to die even with his special mask, and he ignored the rising water level and finally went into the captain's cabin despite the ship being on the verge of sinking, he'd probably be dead.
Just because you were wrong about the suction doesn't mean you were wrong to have him go down with the ship. For example (and entirely likely), when the ship dropped below the water's surface, things BREAK, such as the mast(s), any one of which could have pinned the door to the captain's cabin shut. Or, the ship could have pulled a titanic, with the after portion (where the captain's cabin is), going end-up, which could have emptied the room he was in of water, creating something of a vacuum seal once it hit the water. Even if it didn't, it WOULD have been difficult to swim to the door at that point (the argument about moving around in a car doesn't apply here--you are in contact with the car, which is why you can move around freely, but if you jump high enough in a moving vehicle, it continues on without you; in this case, you'd be trying to swim away from the ship, or pull yourself along. Plus, the flowing water would create much more pressure against you than airflow through a car does).
If anything, I'd maybe allow some tough Str checks/swim checks to get to and open the cabin door while the ship is sinking with a number of rounds to attempt the checks before the ship hits bottom/deep enough to kill him via atmospheric pressure. If the ship hits bottom, he'd be trapped.
4) I wouldn't reverse that decision. Not in my case, and not in yours. The #1 way for a player to die in my games is true stupidity--if someone does something that isn't stupid, and they will die, I'll often provide a way out, or fudge a roll, but if they're doing something reckless (and especially something they've been warned against), well, they asked for it.
So far, I've only had one character die during my years of DMing, and that was because he teleported to a 12-headed hydra ahead of the party who was going to buff, and who then had to either walk down two flights of stairs, or jump out of the third story of a building, and then run over to the battle, making him really the only target for the beast, which was supposed to be terrifying.
A sinking ship should not be an environment that you throw caution to the wind, even with free underwater breathing.
[W]e are obligated to tell the players all relevant and readily accessible information about an encounter.
Regardless of what the player knows, the character would only know something like: 'A sinking ship creates suction,' with a successful knowledge check. Giving a player knowledge relevant to a situation then asking them to compartmentalize it isn't very good GMing. Perhaps some groups don't separate player knowledge from character knowledge in life or death situations, but I don't think this is good blanket advice.
IMO, this would call for a critical failure check for things like a mast breaking and wedging the captain door shut. The other situations could be solved with a jump or swim checks. I don't think its fair to simply declare him dead when there are solutions to these problems. And I don't see the issue with a GM realizing his mistake and correcting.
There are other considerations to be made. Wood floats and wouldn't sink very quickly without significant cargo
Jump and swim checks, sure. I'd likely allow those in such an instance, but they probably wouldn't be easy.
As for the mast falling, I'd probably give indications beforehand that the ship is under strain, such as describing increasingly loud creaks and cracks, but if things like that get ignored, that's the player's fault. My issue with the DM changing what happened in some cases is that it A) can give players the impression that they can do whatever they like and still survive, B) can (maybe) break up the flow of the game/story, and C) removes some of the sense of danger from the world. Now, I'm no bloodthirsty DM, but I tell all of my players that if they do something profoundly stupid in a dangerous situation, they will reap the consequences. It means that when the gargantuan red dragon descends upon the city while they're walking down the street as level 5 adventurers, they RUN! And it means that, when a ship you're on is sinking, and your party members are calling to you to get the hell out, and you instead go below decks, and then to the captain's cabin while the water is passing your waste in search of loot, you're in serious mortal danger.
Yes, wood does float, but not when all of its large, air-filled spaces have gotten filled with water, and if there WAS cargo aboard, that likely hastens the process. Also, while the process of sinking may take a while, once a ship has gone under, I'm fairly certain that it tends to accelerate a bit as suction is no longer relevant and most of the air inside has been displaced.
Finally, yes, there are other factors to consider, by both the DM and the player, such as the fact that sinking ships break and collapse, that as they shift furniture and hangings can become deadly obstacles and projectiles, that in cold environments simply being immersed can be a death sentence, and that visibility (and therefore the ability to escape) can be seriously hampered by sources of light getting covered with or obscured by water. The hold of a ship isn't the brightest place to begin with.
Honestly, I think the OP was overly lenient in giving the player as easy a time as he did exploring below decks while the ship was in the process of taking on water. A sinking ship should be something to abandon with haste unless given a STRONG reason not to do so. The critical failure came not with the dice, but with the player deciding that the only danger inherent in the situation was having to breath underwater for a few minutes and trusting to an item that protected them from that single danger, even after their companions warned them of another.
Wood is less dense than water, yes, and traps air in its pores, which makes it buoyant. None of that is going to stop a ship filled with water, such as from a hull-breach from sinking. Cargo isn't the only factor--ships have ballast (heavy stones or weights that keep the ship upright), which offsets some of the natural buoyancy of the wood (assuming the ship isn't made of cypress), and warships tend to have canons and such as well. If you're talking about a rowboat, sure, but a ship? It's going to sink.