“Without the threat of death, you can’t really be a hero.” ~Knights of the Dinner Table
In Pathfinder, how often should a PC die? How often should there be a TPK?
I want to put aside the easy answer: “it depends on how dangerous you want to make your game”.
I play in a weekly Pathfinder game, a conversion of Savage Tide. The party is level 13. We run with three players, but we have had as many as six. The only PC deaths have come from players killing off their own characters for their personal story reasons. Between all the PCs, we have had fewer than five “unconscious” conditions occur.
The philosophy of our DM is (and I am sure he will correct me if I misquote him): PC death should be a rare event, reserved for a crowning moment of awesomeness, when the death furthers the story and the player agrees to it. He is reluctant to even accept PC death for moments of great player stupidity. He dislikes the Raise Dead spell because he believes it cheapens PC death. Monsters do not attack fallen PCs and monsters will change to less effective tactics if they are doing well enough to kill the party.
Another friend of mine believes death is a routine, but mostly meaningless, event (after a few levels). Battles should be extremely difficult; PC death is not guaranteed, but should be expected. When it happens, PCs should be revived (assuming there was not a TPK).
A third friend believes PCs should never die. If a PC dies, then that is the DM’s fault. A TPK, then, is the most offensive form of DM misconduct. Ideally, a battle should be challenging, but should be surmountable without PC death. If the player is being stupid, then that is still the DM’s problem: the DM should have explained the situation better or not have put him in such a situation in the first place.
Personally, I feel like Pathfinder is meant to be so challenging that PC death is frequent. If PCs do not die, then either the DM is not clever enough, the story is too easy, or the party is overpowered. TPKs should be rare, but happen when the PCs take a risk or make a foolish choice as a group. Monsters should not pull their punches – heck, they should usually be in an advantageous area; that shows off what is cool about that monster and helps the players see why that monster was interesting enough to be put in the Bestiary anyway.
I can’t put a number on how frequently PCs should die, but (to talk in extremes) if more than three levels go by without a single PC dying, then I don’t feel challenged. I’d like to hear your ideal numbers.
This is primarily a combat game. Granted, Pathfinder is presumably easier than D&D 3.5 (more hit points, fewer death spells), but sword-swinging and spell-slinging are still what the game is about. Combat without risks is meaningless; death is a great risk that can be present in every battle (while granting that some battles might have other risks). If a PC dies in Pathfinder, it is a conceit of the game that the story goes on and, while the other PCs may mourn the loss, they can rely on a new hero to replace the fallen. With all due respect to Pathfinder’s creativity, I don’t think it emphasizes social roleplaying as much as games like Warhammer Fantasy RP (WHFRP) or World of Darkness (WoD). I know some people play atypical WoD or Pathfinder games; I’m speaking about the typical game experience.
A word on Raise Dead: This spell (and similar ones) may bother me a bit, despite my acceptance of the conceit of Pathfinder, but it is a part of the game. PCs die. They die so frequently that there is a spell to bring you back to life if you don't want to play a new character. Sure, it takes some of the bite out of PC death, but even so, such spells have their own restrictions and, I suppose, the risk of TPK should go up as levels increase. I'm not sure of that stance on Raise Dead-like spells, or whether it's even appropriate for this topic, but I will put it out there.
I considered going on about how a challenging Pathfinder game can be made, but I think that is outside the scope of this discussion. I want this discussion to be only about how frequent PC death and TPKs should be and why they should be.
Thoughts?
Death happens and it should happen
If their is no threat of death then why play the game
I dont mind if characters die for what ever reasons
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
If their is no threat of death then why play the game
For fun. If a player can't have fun in a game with no threat of death, then he shouldn't play in it.
Everyone has a different number for death frequency preferred. You have to sound out your group and come to consensus over it.
“Without the threat of death, you can’t really be a hero.” ~Knights of the Dinner Table
In Pathfinder, how often should a PC die? How often should there be a TPK?
I want to put aside the easy answer: “it depends on how dangerous you want to make your game”.
..but that is the answer. Everyone's game is different, so there is no universal answer.
A third friend believes PCs should never die. If a PC dies, then that is the DM’s fault. A TPK, then, is the most offensive form of DM misconduct. Ideally, a battle should be challenging, but should be surmountable without PC death. If the player is being stupid, then that is still the DM’s problem: the DM should have explained the situation better or not have put him in such a situation in the first place.
How can it be challenging if you know you are going to win? That is like saying my professor should take the time to come up with a difficult exam, but hand me the cheat sheet.<---Just a thought to pass on to your friend.
Personally, I feel like Pathfinder is meant to be so challenging that PC death is frequent. If PCs do not die, then either the DM is not clever enough, the story is too easy, or the party is overpowered. TPKs should be rare, but happen when the PCs take a risk or make a foolish choice as a group. Monsters should not pull their punches – heck, they should usually be in an advantageous area; that shows off what is cool about that monster and helps the players see why that monster was interesting enough to be put in the Bestiary anyway.
I won't say PC's should die. I will say the threat should be there. If the players know their craft then it is hard to kill them without GM fiat(flat out cheating or rail roading them to make sure they are almost sure to die). I don't see myself being killed if there is another really good player on at the table. It is hard for one person to out think 4 people.
|
You guys do know that it is entirely possible to have fun without any combat encounters at all, right?
But back to the topic, I fall in between the 'never' and 'occasionally' crowd. You probably should see a death or three throughout the course of the campaign, but the players should never 'expect' it. I want them to play the role of someone in that era, and very few heroic people actually worry about their own death on a regular basis.
'Likely', sure. 'Understandable', yep. 'Expected' not so much.
The philosophy of our DM is (and I am sure he will correct me if I misquote him): PC death should be a rare event, reserved for a crowning moment of awesomeness, when the death furthers the story and the player agrees to it. He is reluctant to even accept PC death for moments of great player stupidity. He dislikes the Raise Dead spell because he believes it cheapens PC death. Monsters do not attack fallen PCs and monsters will change to less effective tactics if they are doing well enough to kill the party.This is fairly close to my own take on the idea, with the counterpoint that extreme stupidity should have its' own (questionable) reward. However, tactical retreat, negotiation, and people being rendered unconscious should all be frequent. "Accidental" death and TPKs aren't out of the question, but should be avoided unless the PCs don't take the hint that, through bad luck or bad decisions, they've gotten to the point where they're in over their heads too far to pull through.
I agree with Chris and with your DM, mostly.
This is exactly the attitude I take when running Shadowrun, World of Darkness, or any other game without Raise Dead. I'm a little more willing to kill characters in a setting where death is not permanent. Ideally, once a party reaches the level where a party member can raise the dead (usually level 9), the party would become more bold about risking death.
If their is no threat of death then why play the game
Similarly, if there's no chance of seeing a woman's boobies, then why watch a movie?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I am beginning to believe that my experiences, however long, are atypical. Access to raise dead, resurrection, etc. is very limited if not outright impossible. This is usually mitigated somewhat by the use of hero points, but those run out.
In my current five member 12th level party, we've had a member killed in each of the last two combats. Down to three members, we're going to have to withdraw. This (character death) isn't typical, but having one or two characters unconsious is.
I do want to throw some observations out there. I hear a lot of complaining that players don't make real backgrounds for characters. If the campaign is a meat-grinder, why bother ? My character's only going to last a couple of sessions anyway.
Of your three presented ways of thinking, I'm closest to the GM's with the following reservations. PC stupidity often results in character death.
Caveat the first: The GM has access to information the players and characters don't, so what appears blatantly stupid to the GM may not to the player and even less so to the character, without meta-gaming. Especially if the GM has a reputation for changing up the appearance and abilities of monsters.
Caveat the second: If your party's wizard or cleric aren't playing smartly, this can lead to the deaths of the OTHER party members. In one infamous party I was in, the wizard would enter combat on maybe the fourth round because of all the time he spent buffing himself before the first haste or fireball or whatever got thrown. By this time the fighter's down to half hit points, the cleric is just hanging on and the rogue is down. Other times, it's just inexperience or lack of familiarity with the rules.
Caveat the third: Monsters attacking fallen PCs. Why would a monster do this ? The guys who are still up are the threat. The exceptions I can see are monsters who are attacking because they are hungry. Once you grab a tasty morsel, why stick around for more punishment ? Get back to your safe place for your noms. The other exception are intelligent actors (like Drow) who can see that they're losing and must withdraw, but might do a few coup-de-graces while waiting for the outliers to get back. If anything, I see too many monsters played as if they know they're in an all-or-nothing I'm-gonna-die-anyway-so-I-might-as-well-take-one-with-me style. If the monster knows it's overmatched, then it should get the heck outta dodge !
Caveat the fourth: Sometimes you just get critted three times in a row. I'm sure you've had one of those nights where you can't roll a double digit number and somebody else is rolling nothing but crits. It happens. This and the infamous "I rolled a 1" on a save (against something like finger of death) are inevitable if you play long enough. THIS is what hero points and the rare resurrection are for.
In a combat oriented game, death has to be a threat in order to present a legitimate feeling of the players risking their lives. In an exploration or social themed game, not so much.
In games I GM, I find it easier to just kill off the NPC that the players like best. That way, it hits home without disrupting character progression.
The philosophy of our DM is (and I am sure he will correct me if I misquote him): PC death should be a rare event, reserved for a crowning moment of awesomeness, when the death furthers the story and the player agrees to it. He is reluctant to even accept PC death for moments of great player stupidity. He dislikes the Raise Dead spell because he believes it cheapens PC death. Monsters do not attack fallen PCs and monsters will change to less effective tactics if they are doing well enough to kill the party.This is fairly close to my own take on the idea, with the counterpoint that extreme stupidity should have its' own (questionable) reward. However, tactical retreat, negotiation, and people being rendered unconscious should all be frequent. "Accidental" death and TPKs aren't out of the question, but should be avoided unless the PCs don't take the hint that, through bad luck or bad decisions, they've gotten to the point where they're in over their heads too far to pull through.I agree with Chris and with your DM, mostly.
This is exactly the attitude I take when running Shadowrun, World of Darkness, or any other game without Raise Dead. I'm a little more willing to kill characters in a setting where death is not permanent. Ideally, once a party reaches the level where a party member can raise the dead (usually level 9), the party would become more bold about risking death.
Heroes dont always die heroically. Many important people have died by some random disease, poison, some mook backstabbing them, and so on.
I will also say what I always like to say. It depends on whether you are the heroes of is the GM just giving you the opportunity to become the heroes.I think many people think of themselves as the heroes so they want a special death, while some GM's will give you the chance to be the heroes, but the don't equate hero with the PC tag.
Personally I think character death can and should happen BUT only in exceptional circumstances! Ive played 1e before where it characters had the save or die nonsense that meant over the course of a campaign you'd end up playing many different characters or ones you've had raised so often that their Con was reduced to pitiful levels. What ends up happening is that the focus of the story shifted away from the heroics of the PCs to the grandeur of the campaign. If the PCs have a low chance to actually survive the campaign then why bother with character backstory and development if they are only going to die under potentially stupid ways. To me, that ends up ruining my player buy in and I may as well just munchin out some PC and ride it as long as I can.
If my character dies in an act of heroism then w0000t! She lived an awesome life. BUT if my lvl 9 character dies because I fail some silly climb check and plunge 1000 feet... then I have a serious problem.
If their is no threat of death then why play the gameSimilarly, if there's no chance of seeing a woman's boobies, then why watch a movie?
I would say if you already know the outcome why play the game instead. That way it applies to more than just death.
I am pretty much an anti-fudge GM. I might be able to allow a campaign where nobody dies, but I refuse to be an anit-fail GM. I would just set the end game up so that defeating the NPC and surviving does not save the world.
To continue: the person you are escorting to the next town might die. A nation may be overrun by monsters and so on.
That was nicely played hogarth. I know what your response would have been had someone tried to seperate movies from boobs, but most game sessions do equate gaming and possible death, while most movies are not made with boobs in mind.
|
|
I would say if you already know the outcome why play the game instead. That way it applies to more than just death.
Depends on if you know how it goes down.
Think of all the movies that show the ending first. Why watch the rest of the movie if you already knew the ending?
Did you go watch Titanic or the King Kong remake? Why? You already knew how it was going to end, didn't you?
How can it be challenging if you know you are going to win? That is like saying my professor should take the time to come up with a difficult exam, but hand me the cheat sheet.<---Just a thought to pass on to your friend.
I have no issue with that.
You should have to try for an hour but after that given sheet if not finished.This way you tried yor hardest, but you see where you went wrong. And you learned what thw right answer was.
The philosophy of our DM is (and I am sure he will correct me if I misquote him): PC death should be a rare event, reserved for a crowning moment of awesomeness, when the death furthers the story and the player agrees to it. He is reluctant to even accept PC death for moments of great player stupidity. He dislikes the Raise Dead spell because he believes it cheapens PC death. Monsters do not attack fallen PCs and monsters will change to less effective tactics if they are doing well enough to kill the party.This is fairly close to my own take on the idea, with the counterpoint that extreme stupidity should have its' own (questionable) reward. However, tactical retreat, negotiation, and people being rendered unconscious should all be frequent. "Accidental" death and TPKs aren't out of the question, but should be avoided unless the PCs don't take the hint that, through bad luck or bad decisions, they've gotten to the point where they're in over their heads too far to pull through.
+1, mostly, except I don't think unconscious should happen often either. To me, PC death should only (only) happen due to gross player stupidity or intentional sacrifice (staying behind when you need to run from the group of monsters to delay them, for example).
A bad roll or two should never kill a PC. Ever. And yes, Raise Dead cheapens death and puts the revolving afterlife door in, but I think it exists solely as insurance - if you're playing open rolls, and the dice hate you and you take an unlucky death (see point 1, this shouldn't happen, but GMs aren't perfect either), it's a way to undo that...but frankly, if it's used in my sort of game, it means someone dropped the ball somewhere and didn't catch it in time (player forgot about that con adjustment from the poison, so that last hit that put them at -1 actually put them at -15 or whatever).
I'm running King Maker and there have been some close calls where a players death or not came down the roll of few dice. So far the dice gods have been favorable to my players.
I did have 1 encounter where I let the players live. It was Random encounter with Great Cyclops. I figured it was an encounter my players would just run from if it proved too difficult. Problem was they couldn't out run the Great Cyclops. It had 50 foot base speed with a 15 foot reach. It was a slaughter. Things did not go well in that fight and didn't think TPK for random encounter like this was fair. So what I did was tossed some favorable terrain in for the players.
I dont kill alot of players but I make sure my players fear death, ive played in games where I knew the DM wouldnt kill my character and I used it to my advantage through out every combat.
Threat of death is a good thing but every combat doesnt need to threaten death but if you never do then the game just loses something for me and everyone I have played with regularly
I would say if you already know the outcome why play the game instead. That way it applies to more than just death.Depends on if you know how it goes down.
Think of all the movies that show the ending first. Why watch the rest of the movie if you already knew the ending?
Did you go watch Titanic or the King Kong remake? Why? You already knew how it was going to end, didn't you?
I knew this would come up. My investment in a game is different than my investment in a movie, even if both are forms of entertainment. A game has win/loss stakes normally attached to it. A movie does not. I understand some people see themselves as actors in game, and in the same way most movies have the good guys winning they want to emulate that. It is not wrong to do so. I think it has to do with the fact that I don't like feeling like I am receiving a handout.
I hold to the Dwarf Fortress philosophy: losing should be fun.
Alternately, I also follow the FATE philosophy: losing shouldn't end the game, but branch it into something else.
|
|
I knew this would come up. My investment in a game is different than my investment in a movie, even if both are forms of entertainment. A game has win/loss stakes normally attached to it. A movie does not. I understand some people see themselves as actors in game, and in the same way most movies have the good guys winning they want to emulate that. It is not wrong to do so. I think it has to do with the fact that I don't like feeling like I am receiving a handout.
A movie can have win/loss stakes just as much as a game does. If it's a good movie, you want the good guys to win, and will be disappointed if they do not. Bad movies don't get you to care, and thus you don't care about the stakes.
“Without the threat of death, you can’t really be a hero.” ~Knights of the Dinner Table
In Pathfinder, how often should a PC die? How often should there be a TPK?
See, to my mind, asking that question that way would indicate the wrong thinking about the subject.
I had a player for a long time, who had it in his head that PCs "should" die, and when they didn't die as quickly as he thought they "should" he made a lot of trouble for me and everybody at the table.
Better we should hope for the best, but prepare for the worst, and not expect there to be some set amount of death to occur on some magically regular schedule. The answer as to how frequently PC death "should" occur is, "when it does."
Anything more than that is a self-fulfilling prophecy and a bad mentality to have entering into a a game where people are attached to their characters.
And yes, sorry, but it really does depend on your individual players. You may not want to hear that, but like any serious issue in the game, you simply MUST know your players before you decide how to treat death.
To all who believe that PC death should be rare or not happen at all...
What gets you excited about combat? Or, if you do not get excited about combat, what makes you excited about the game? Do you think the game still has risks without the threat of death - if so, what are those risks?
Consider this scenario: Would you be happy if Pathfinder's rules said, "PCs cannot die"? What if i went further, and said, "PCs do not have hit points and cannot be rendered unconscious"? If that's too much, then would adding "except by DM fiat" make it palatable?
Or consider a different scenario: Suppose a game running in that ideal, where the DM and the players agree "PCs should expect to not die". Would you be comfortable if one of the players, banking on that, built a character who was not well-suited for combat? That is to say, his attributes are balanced, his spells (if any) and feats are mostly non-combat or fact-specific? Or, to go even further, the player says, "My character is built to be effective at other things; he cannot fight well in combat and I am comfortable with that; the burden will be on the others. That's okay, though, because we do not worry about death".
Now, onto specific responses, but which everybody might want to read...
Death happens and it should happen
If their is no threat of death then why play the game
I dont mind if characters die for what ever reasons
I think this is too hard of a tack to swallow. Although I've been of the opinion that death should be expected to happen, I don't think they should die "for what ever reasons". I usually think of combat as a good enough reason, but death should not be random, and the combat should be meaningful.
If their is no threat of death then why play the gameFor fun. If a player can't have fun in a game with no threat of death, then he shouldn't play in it.
Do you mean to say that you would be comfortable in a Pathfinder campaign, levels 1-20, where the DM told you from the outset, "There will be no threat of death". If so, what do you find exciting?
..but that is the answer. Everyone's game is different, so there is no universal answer.“Without the threat of death, you can’t really be a hero.” ~Knights of the Dinner Table
In Pathfinder, how often should a PC die? How often should there be a TPK?
I want to put aside the easy answer: “it depends on how dangerous you want to make your game”.
Although everyone's game is different, I am asking what the standard should be in Pathfinder. I believe each game has its own general life expectancy. You should not expect PCs to die frequently in "Qin: the Warring States" or in "World of Darkness". In fact, they might never die until their story comes to an end; random combat encounters won't be the end of them. However, in AD&D, PCs could expect to die very frequently - that's one of the reasons character generation was so quick (or, at least, quick character generation made death more comfortable).
Personally, I feel like Pathfinder is meant to be so challenging that PC death is frequent. If PCs do not die, then either the DM is not clever enough, the story is too easy, or the party is overpowered. TPKs should be rare, but happen when the PCs take a risk or make a foolish choice as a group. Monsters should not pull their punches – heck, they should usually be in an advantageous area; that shows off what is cool about that monster and helps the players see why that monster was interesting enough to be put in the Bestiary anyway.I won't say PC's should die. I will say the threat should be there. If the players know their craft then it is hard to kill them without GM fiat(flat out cheating or rail roading them to make sure they are almost sure to die). I don't see myself being killed if there is another really good player on at the table. It is hard for one person to out think 4 people.
I should add, yes, the players in this game are all good at it. We're a clever bunch, if I can say so myself.
So, where exactly do you stand between "PCs should only die when the moment is awesome" and "the threat of death should be there"? Should DMs usually make the battles relatively easy, so he isn't concerned about the PCs actually dying unless they screw up badly? Should the DM make the battles hard, but pull his punches when the PCs are badly injured?
You guys do know that it is entirely possible to have fun without any combat encounters at all, right?
Like I acknowledged in my opening post, yes, you can have fun without combat encounters. However, the classes are, overall, geared toward combat. It's a combat game that can be used for other things (the merits of which, as you suggest, are off-topic).
But back to the topic, I fall in between the 'never' and 'occasionally' crowd. You probably should see a death or three throughout the course of the campaign, but the players should never 'expect' it. I want them to play the role of someone in that era, and very few heroic people actually worry about their own death on a regular basis.
'Likely', sure. 'Understandable', yep. 'Expected' not so much.
What do you mean by "that era"? Fantasy stands outside our timeline, often supposing situations which would be, well, fantastic. I think you're actually meaning to make a claim about the genre as a whole, one which I am not sure holds up in light of settings such as WHFRP.
But, in speaking of the mythic hero, it's a conceit of the genre that "all heroes die". Death by old age really is uncommon for heroes. Hmm... this might be a topic in itself. I'm concerned it's getting a bit far afield from our discussion.
But if I understand your point, you mean to say that heroes, being heroes, should expect they can survive almost anything they encounter. I will counter by saying, each adventure should be a truly heroic undertaking, the ones in which they really do risk death - what happens between adventures, in the downtime, is the stuff they don't fear.
I have had more enjoyment in campaigns where there is a sense of mortality for the PCs. Having a good GM, who knows how to exercise fiat can make a huge difference when determining whether or not a PC death is necessary.
I feel cheated somehow if the GM made my characters death into a trivial thing by simply allowing someone to simply being them back from the dead.
What guidelines do you suggest for DM fiat?
I do want to throw some observations out there. I hear a lot of complaining that players don't make real backgrounds for characters. If the campaign is a meat-grinder, why bother ? My character's only going to last a couple of sessions anyway.
Pathfinder games usually have many players, in a game that focuses on combat, and where there are likely to be more hack-n-slashers. That means there are players who don't want the group to focus on roleplaying, many players expect some combat, and, as with any game, the more players you have, the less time you can devote to giving players the spotlight for roleplaying. All this, in turn, discourages players from creating complex backstories and seeking roleplaying opportunities.
Caveat the third: Monsters attacking fallen PCs. Why would a monster do this ? The guys who are still up are the threat. The exceptions I can see are monsters who are attacking because they are hungry. Once you grab a tasty morsel, why stick around for more punishment ? Get back to your safe place for your noms.
I think some monsters should be aware that the PCs likely have a way of healing fallen comrades. A good way to keep those comrades from coming back up to fight is to end them then and there: that encourages the other PCs to flee, knowing they cannot get their numbers back up.
This is exactly the attitude I take when running Shadowrun, World of Darkness, or any other game without Raise Dead.I suppose I should point out that I don't allow Raise Dead in my campaigns - Resurrection and Reincarnate are permitted, so it's not impossible to come back. Just much, much harder than a trip down to the local shrine and a small percentage of a merchant's life savings. Cheaper methods than a high-level spellcaster can also exist, but have other complications (and are usually one-shot magic items.)
So, why do you limit it? Because it seems too cheap?
How can it be challenging if you know you are going to win? That is like saying my professor should take the time to come up with a difficult exam, but hand me the cheat sheet.<---Just a thought to pass on to your friend.
I have no issue with that.
You should have to try for an hour but after that given sheet if not finished.
This way you tried yor hardest, but you see where you went wrong. And you learned what thw right answer was.
While trying to rein us back from the metaphor, I'll add this...
When I learn that my PC would have died, but that the DM pulled a punch to let me win, I am upset. I didn't get to see the monster at its best. I don't get to see how the party reacts to a PC dying, how it affects their tactics, how they will revive me, if they can revive me. I also feel less excited; it turns out I am not doing as well as I thought, that the thrill of the risk was artificial. I also don't feel like I need to try as hard next time because I know the DM will go easy on me.|
|
Do you mean to say that you would be comfortable in a Pathfinder campaign, levels 1-20, where the DM told you from the outset, "There will be no threat of death". If so, what do you find exciting?
If the group agreed to that, I could run or play in it. I would enjoy the banter between characters, the mystery of exploring the unknown beyond the next door, pulling off insane action-movie-style stunts, and the thrill of killing a truly evil foe.
There is no consequence to ramping off a building in Grand Theft Auto besides maybe a trip to the hospital and hit to your pocket book, but you still enjoy doing it, don't you?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Pathfinder TOON ! If your characters "dies" (falls down), you have to go on a munchie or pizza run and are away from the gaming table until you get back.
I knew this would come up. My investment in a game is different than my investment in a movie, even if both are forms of entertainment. A game has win/loss stakes normally attached to it. A movie does not. I understand some people see themselves as actors in game, and in the same way most movies have the good guys winning they want to emulate that. It is not wrong to do so. I think it has to do with the fact that I don't like feeling like I am receiving a handout.
A movie can have win/loss stakes just as much as a game does. If it's a good movie, you want the good guys to win, and will be disappointed if they do not. Bad movies don't get you to care, and thus you don't care about the stakes.
If character are annoying in bad movies I cheer for the bad guys.
|
Character death really doesn't seem to be a big deal for my players. Between life-restoring magic and a player's ability to simply draft up a new character, death might as well be the same thing as breaking up with someone. Either you'll hook up again later or someone new will come along. At this point, the only way I could convince my players that death is a big deal is by imposing a "No Gaming For You" hiatus on anyone whose character dies and, while that might be kind of funny, it's hardly practical.
It isn't that my players don't get attached to their characters or completely don't care about what happens to them. I think they just realize that death is part of the game. If they die, they either use the available means to come back to life or they move on to the next concept.
We've only had one TPK, but 40 characters have died or otherwise been rendered unplayable in my campaign in the last two years. I don't think I'm a Killer GM, but I don't pull punches if the monsters are particularly evil or bloodthirsty or the party does something unwise. Adventuring is dangerous work. That's why most NPCs don't do it. My players seem to realize this and accept the risks. It hasn't diminished the fun they have playing the game.
To me, something needs to be at stake for the story to have drama/worth.
It's a combat game, so lives should be at stake.
It's also a story game, so 'happy endings' should be at stake.
It should be on the shoulders of the players to succeed.
It should be on the shoulders of the GM to make success non-arbitrary.
Bad rolls are not arbitrary, IMO. They are randomized story elements, inherent in the game's nature.
Newbies need help. You can only be a newbie so long.
(That isn't aimed at anybody, it's how I treat my newbies.)
I once presented a list of optional campaigns for players to choose from. Each had a difficulty level attached to it from 1-5, with '3' being 'normal play will succeed, stupidity or bad luck will kill you'
I'd suggest utilizing such a scale and presenting the various options to your players (attached to specific story types or not).
Most of the campaigns were 3 or 4 (one a '2', where 'destiny' of the PCs was a factor, and 'happy ending' was more at risk than life). The players chose the single campaign with difficulty '5', 'Expect to lose several PCs. TPKs likely without superior play.'
It's not something I'd inflict on them unawares or by fiat, but that's what they wanted and we had a blast. Each venture became a true threat, and the emotions made for a heightened experience. And, since most PCs did live, the threat/emotions grew each time, especially when those TPKs loomed...
Anyway, GM/Player understanding & communication is foremost important.
To all who believe that PC death should be rare or not happen at all...
What gets you excited about combat? Or, if you do not get excited about combat, what makes you excited about the game? Do you think the game still has risks without the threat of death - if so, what are those risks?
I do get excited about combat, but more about the narrative of it - describing the battle, having it happen in exciting places. And there's the risk of failure without death, from simple "you fail to defeat the enemies with enough resources to keep going without resting" to "you fail to defeat the enemy and have to retreat" to "you fail to protect the town/important NPC/etc.". And if you're on a timeline, any of these make the failure of your overall objective more likely, or even inevitable.
Consider this scenario: Would you be happy if Pathfinder's rules said, "PCs cannot die"? What if i went further, and said, "PCs do not have hit points and cannot be rendered unconscious"? If that's too much, then would adding "except by DM fiat" make it palatable?
No, but add "except when dramatically appropriate or when they do something incredibly stupid (level 1 charging the ancient red dragon, for instance)" and I'm good.
Or consider a different scenario: Suppose a game running in that ideal, where the DM and the players agree "PCs should expect to not die". Would you be comfortable if one of the players, banking on that, built a character who was not well-suited for combat? That is to say, his attributes are balanced, his spells (if any) and feats are mostly non-combat or fact-specific? Or, to go even further, the player says, "My character is built to be effective at other things; he cannot fight well in combat and I am comfortable with that; the burden will be on the others. That's okay, though, because we do not worry about death".
Yes, that'd be fine...but said player had better have a way to get past obstacles without fighting, then, otherwise again, our overall mission is more likely to fail.
Now, for everyone that says you have to have death for it to have any meaning to play, that it's no fun if you're not expecting to die every few levels, and similar...let me ask you this. If you know your character is likely to die within a couple levels, what's the point of playing? Why not just play Warhammer (not the roleplay, the battle game) if you're not going to get attached to your character? What's the point if your characters aren't likely to actually get to the end of the story?
I let my PCs know that I will kill them, and they make strong characters in a strong party composition to avoid that. I've had very, very few character deaths as a result. Usually they're because of A) Bad dice luck combined with in-combat coup de grace or B) Lucky criticals on unlucky characters, ie. a bard in my game was once critted by a dire wraith for 2d8 Con-- turned up 13, and the Bard had 13 Con.
I'm only recently having problems in my Saturday game where the characters were highly undergeared (level 5 gear when they were level 10) fighting well-built encounters. Now they're even again, and it's hard but doable. No longer impossible.
I knew this would come up. My investment in a game is different than my investment in a movie, even if both are forms of entertainment. A game has win/loss stakes normally attached to it. A movie does not. I understand some people see themselves as actors in game, and in the same way most movies have the good guys winning they want to emulate that. It is not wrong to do so. I think it has to do with the fact that I don't like feeling like I am receiving a handout.
A movie can have win/loss stakes just as much as a game does. If it's a good movie, you want the good guys to win, and will be disappointed if they do not. Bad movies don't get you to care, and thus you don't care about the stakes.
I would like the good guys to win, but my expectations from a movie don't compare to my expectations from a game is the general point.
I would have responded a long time ago, but I lost track of time. Sorry about that.
Although everyone's game is different, I am asking what the standard should be in Pathfinder. I believe each game has its own general life expectancy. You should not expect PCs to die frequently in "Qin: the Warring States" or in "World of Darkness". In fact, they might never die until their story comes to an end; random combat encounters won't be the end of them. However, in AD&D, PCs could expect to die very frequently - that's one of the reasons character generation was so quick (or, at least, quick character generation made death more comfortable).
I don't think there should be a standard number of deaths. It is too hard to enforce.
There are narrative groups where the story comes before all. In such groups killing is not looked highly upon in my experience.In my games if you mess up you will probably end up dead, and playstyle can be a bigger factor that the actual rules themselves. I have had players think I was out to get them because they were used to not being allowed to die. Other players were giving me high 5's even after I killed their character.
The gulf between the playstyle is so vast that no standard has been set, and never will be.
So, where exactly do you stand between "PCs should only die when the moment is awesome" and "the threat of death should be there"? Should DMs usually make the battles relatively easy, so he isn't concerned about the PCs actually dying unless they screw up badly? Should the DM make the battles hard, but pull his punches when the PCs are badly injured?
I think they should die when they die. If you fall 50 feet and falling damage kills you then too bad. APL=CR battles are normally easy, but certain monsters may be something the group is not prepared for and have a hard time. Whatever happens happens.
I won't say a GM should pull punches. It is all situational.For the sake of this discussion I will assume we have at least all average players, then I will say the GM should not pull punches, but I am the type that likes to play in a game where I might die. I am sure other posters disagree with me.
If character are annoying in bad movies I cheer for the bad guys.
I knew this would come up. My investment in a game is different than my investment in a movie, even if both are forms of entertainment. A game has win/loss stakes normally attached to it. A movie does not. I understand some people see themselves as actors in game, and in the same way most movies have the good guys winning they want to emulate that. It is not wrong to do so. I think it has to do with the fact that I don't like feeling like I am receiving a handout.
A movie can have win/loss stakes just as much as a game does. If it's a good movie, you want the good guys to win, and will be disappointed if they do not. Bad movies don't get you to care, and thus you don't care about the stakes.
LOL@ Jar Jar Binks. I wanted him to die.
I let the dice fall where they may, in 3.5, Pathfinder, and 4e. There are no meaningless combats; if there's a fight - the party is fighting for their lives. In our 3.5 version of Savage Tide (currently at 19th level) there have been over 10 PC deaths, but only 2 permanent ones. And those were by player choice ("no, don't get me raised"). When the threat of death is real, and oh man at high levels SoD's abound, raises are not cheap (we could buy an item that would help us, or we could buy more diamond dust).
To put it in perspective of some of the my earliest and some of my favorite fantasy novels, yes, all PCs want to be Sturm Brightblade. Unfortunately, somebody might wind up as Flint Fireforge.
A couple things before I get into replying to the posts.
First, a thought: Death has seemed to me to be part of the challenge of the game. That it is a good analysis of how challenging your game is. If PCs rarely die, they aren't being challenged enough. If somebody dies every battle, maybe the game is too challenging. I thought there was some sweet spot between those two extremes that people could agree is what they are looking for. However, I am now seeing that people do accept both extremes and everything in between. To my surprise, people are actually more inclined to go with what I would have considered (with all due respect) to be a game that is not very challenging. I'm being forced to reevaluate that assumption as I write this.
Second, I had a discussion with my weekly gaming group about death, which led to these conclusions...
1) Monsters will go after the most obvious threat, unless they are skirmishers.
2) Skirmishers will often go after the weakest target. They are more likely than normal monsters to coup de grace because their goal is to harry, harass, and weaken their enemies over a period.
3) When a creature hits 0 HP, you cannot tell whether they are unconscious or dead without a Heal check. Therefore, most creatures are better off assuming that their opponent is dead; using a coup de grace risks stabbing a dead body.
4) Most monsters assume the PCs do not have healing because magical healing is an unusual ability. Furthermore, most monsters likely have not encountered healers. Also, those who have likely assume that their healers do not have adequate healing if they let their allies go unconscious in normal circumstances, because it is reasonable to believe that healers would usually keep their allies' hit points up if they have any healing in reserve, and not many healers can use powerful healing spells like, well, Heal.
5) The fallout of point 4 is that monsters usually feel confident that if they knock out a PC, that PC is not getting back up during the fight.
6) Non-skirmisher monsters would only coup de grace a PC if they believed that the downed character would be a threat if revived; a threat greater than letting the target's allies pound on the monster the next round while he spends it doing a coup de grace.
Therefore, monsters will rarely kill PCs if the PCs remain in a group, unless they knock unconscious all of the PCs. Even then, they'd need to make a Heal check to know they didn't kill the PC.
Now, onto the replies!
Do you mean to say that you would be comfortable in a Pathfinder campaign, levels 1-20, where the DM told you from the outset, "There will be no threat of death". If so, what do you find exciting?If the group agreed to that, I could run or play in it. I would enjoy the banter between characters, the mystery of exploring the unknown beyond the next door, pulling off insane action-movie-style stunts, and the thrill of killing a truly evil foe.
There is no consequence to ramping off a building in Grand Theft Auto besides maybe a trip to the hospital and hit to your pocket book, but you still enjoy doing it, don't you?
First, the snarky part of my reply. I don't play GTA :-P
But seriously, I get your point. Some games are fun without the threat of death. I've played a lot of video game RPGs where I don't feel particularly threatened. I do have to say, though, personally I feel more excited when every battle is so challenging I wonder if it will be my last.The other things you mentioned are interesting. I don't usually think of Pathfinder as a game for action-movie stunts, but I have seen some players do a few... I've done and suggested a few myself. I wish the game was more explicit in its support of that if that is what people are doing. I think they made a good choice with the Gunslinger in that regard; it does have an action movie feel to it through and through.
One more thing about easiness... I ran a 4th edition game where the battles became incredibly easy. I'd have to check with my players, but I think the incredible easiness had something to do with why we all grew bored of the system near the end (even if we were all enjoying the game).
I wonder if I'm coming to the gaming table for the wrong thing. My priorities might be backwards.
Pathfinder TOON ! If your characters "dies" (falls down), you have to go on a munchie or pizza run and are away from the gaming table until you get back.
I assume you're joking, but that still sounds like fun XD
Character death really doesn't seem to be a big deal for my players. Between life-restoring magic and a player's ability to simply draft up a new character, death might as well be the same thing as breaking up with someone. Either you'll hook up again later or someone new will come along. At this point, the only way I could convince my players that death is a big deal is by imposing a "No Gaming For You" hiatus on anyone whose character dies and, while that might be kind of funny, it's hardly practical.
It isn't that my players don't get attached to their characters or completely don't care about what happens to them. I think they just realize that death is part of the game. If they die, they either use the available means to come back to life or they move on to the next concept.
We've only had one TPK, but 40 characters have died or otherwise been rendered unplayable in my campaign in the last two years. I don't think I'm a Killer GM, but I don't pull punches if the monsters are particularly evil or bloodthirsty or the party does something unwise. Adventuring is dangerous work. That's why most NPCs don't do it. My players seem to realize this and accept the risks. It hasn't diminished the fun they have playing the game.
See, here is where I do get a bit lost. For me, the possibility of character death is fun, but... he could get revived really quickly. Which diminishes the excitement. And a TPK would ruin a story, usually Hmm... I guess it wouldn't matter in a straight-up dungeon crawl, but the moment that you begin adding story to the game...
So, hm, the very thrill I want is actually unachievable in a game where there is easy access to resurrection. This is sobering.
I once presented a list of optional campaigns for players to choose from. Each had a difficulty level attached to it from 1-5, with '3' being 'normal play will succeed, stupidity or bad luck will kill you'
I'd suggest utilizing such a scale and presenting the various options to your players (attached to specific story types or not).
Most of the campaigns were 3 or 4 (one a '2', where 'destiny' of the PCs was a factor, and 'happy ending' was more at risk than life). The players chose the single campaign with difficulty '5', 'Expect to lose several PCs. TPKs likely without superior play.'
It's not something I'd inflict on them unawares or by fiat, but that's what they wanted and we had a blast. Each venture became a true threat, and the emotions made for a heightened experience. And, since most PCs did live, the threat/emotions grew each time, especially when those TPKs loomed...
This is a really interesting concept. I've never heard of a DM doing that. I assume you didn't fully flesh out the campaigns before running them. You had the seed for the campaigns, each of which would be a certain difficulty.
By the way, what are your standards for the various difficulties?
I do get excited about combat, but more about the narrative of it - describing the battle, having it happen in exciting places. And there's the risk of failure without death, from simple "you fail to defeat the enemies with enough resources to keep going without resting" to "you fail to defeat the enemy and have to retreat" to "you fail to protect the town/important NPC/etc.". And if you're on a timeline, any of these make the failure of your overall objective more likely, or even inevitable.
I meant to hold off on discussion resting for another thread, but I'll at least give it a moment here to reply...
I don't usually feel rushed in a dungeon. PCs seem to usually be able to rest whenever they want. So, running out of resources in a dungeon doesn't seem like a "fail" condition to me. You might as well go in both barrels blazing. that makes a lot of encounters less interesting to me. I also can't think of a single time I have had to retreat. I'm also used to most victory conditions being "kill everything that moves". So, combat in my experience hasn't had these tactical considerations you seem to value, which means I have some trouble relating to your viewpoint. Maybe that's a flaw with the Savage Tide campaign?Now, for everyone that says you have to have death for it to have any meaning to play, that it's no fun if you're not expecting to die every few levels, and similar...let me ask you this. If you know your character is likely to die within a couple levels, what's the point of playing? Why not just play Warhammer (not the roleplay, the battle game) if you're not going to get attached to your character? What's the point if your characters aren't likely to actually get to the end of the story?
Ni~ce turn-around... now you've got me thinking about that.
Well, there's a few reasons...1) I get excited about playing new characters, constantly improving my ability to design and play characters. I'm one of those people who gets bored with a character after a few levels.
2) It lends some gravity to my character to know that his number is coming up. Oh, he'll die, but his journey will be interesting, and... ah, crap, when I say it like that compared with the way you put things, it honestly sounds a bit lame to me. I really want a balance between having a character who is interesting to roleplay and a character I feel comfortable letting go when he dies.
I let the dice fall where they may, in 3.5, Pathfinder, and 4e. There are no meaningless combats; if there's a fight - the party is fighting for their lives. In our 3.5 version of Savage Tide (currently at 19th level) there have been over 10 PC deaths, but only 2 permanent ones. And those were by player choice ("no, don't get me raised"). When the threat of death is real, and oh man at high levels SoD's abound, raises are not cheap (we could buy an item that would help us, or we could buy more diamond dust).
To put it in perspective of some of the my earliest and some of my favorite fantasy novels, yes, all PCs want to be Sturm Brightblade. Unfortunately, somebody might wind up as Flint Fireforge.
1) Are you playing Savage Tide straight, or a conversion to Pathfinder? Either way, my DM might appreciate a chat with someone whose further along than him in running the adventure (we are roaming the underground dungeon in the plateau at the center of the Isle of Dread; I just got the bow of the gods).
2) "SoDs"?
3) So, raises do become prohibitively expensive at higher levels?
4) When you make the Sturm Brightblade / Flint Fireforge comparison, are you saying that players should accept that not all characters get to fulfill their destinies?
stuff
It's too early in the day for me to quote out each bit, so just gonna kinda do a general response, lol.
Ok, firstly, you say combat doesn't have the tactical considerations I mentioned, but I wasn't talking about just the consequences of that combat. I don't know what Savage Tide is like, but...well, why are you doing whatever you're doing? What's the overall campaign goal?
This kind of thing depends a lot on that, but, for example, if you're trying to stop the evil wizard from summoning the demon lord and plunging the world into millennia of darkness...losing a battle may mean you get there right after the spell is finished instead of right before. Stopping to rest after every encounter may mean the demon lord gets summoned while you're still on your way to the dark castle.
Within a battle, it still applies, though. Especially when you're on the defensive. Again, let's say you're in a town, maybe your town, maybe a friendly one...whatever the reason, it's a town and you want it to stay there. ^_- Well...orcs/gnolls/goblins/etc. attack the village...you don't want this. If you fail in this battle, even if you don't die...the town's gone. You lost - your objective, defending the town, wasn't met, even if you survived. Now you don't have the town there, but maybe you want to go rescue the townsfolk to restore it, to some degree - again, you fight, and if you fail...well, maybe they execute the townsfolk, maybe the townies get killed during the fighting. Again, failure, with greater campaign impact, but not necessitating your death.
If you're just raiding dungeons for loot, then no, there's not really gonna be any "failure conditions" like that. But then...why are you just raiding dungeons for loot? Some people do that, but it seems like it'd be a terribly boring game to me. >_> <_<
Also...yeah, I'm a concept girl too. I have tons of concepts for new characters...but without getting attached to them, they're just numbers. So I play one until her story is done, and the next campaign, I play a new one. ^_^
I assume you're joking, but that still sounds like fun.
Yes, I was joking. I was referring to Steve Jackson Games "Toon". In Toon, everyone plays, well, a cartoon character. Since as we all know from "Who Framed Roger Rabbit ?", toons basically can't die. So if your character takes what would otherwise be 'fatal' damage, they don't die, they 'fall down'. When your character has fallen down, you (the player) have to leave the room for a period of time (usually five minutes) but may then rejoin play.
1) Are you playing Savage Tide straight, or a conversion to Pathfinder? Either way, my DM might appreciate a chat with someone whose further along than him in running the adventure (we are roaming the underground dungeon in the plateau at the center of the Isle of Dread; I just got the bow of the gods).
2) "SoDs"?
3) So, raises do become prohibitively expensive at higher levels?
4) When you make the Sturm Brightblade / Flint Fireforge comparison, are you saying that players should accept that not all characters get to fulfill their destinies?
1)3.5 pretty much as-is. I can be emailed at ghettowedge@yahoo.com and if he posts in the Savage Tide forum here there are a ton of DM's and players that have gone through already. And the devs post on occasion.
2) Save or Die. In 3.x at around 12th level or higher so many opponents have a save or die spell or effect. The most recent PC death was due to finger of death. Tonight's session ended at the start of an encounter with a monster with a vorpal bite; if it crits your head comes off.
3) Most of the time just the fact of being out of the encounter is punitive enough to make death suck. I don't believe the party has ever been able to not afford a raise, but they don't always have access to the actual component. And death effects, like those from many SoDs, require resurection which has a 10,000 gp component, and true resurection, if they want to avoid the level loss (they do), costs 25,000. For a short while, they weren't buying diamond dust ahead of time, and there would be a scramble to pool resources because almost every gp gets spent. Now each member gives the cleric the diamond dust ahead of time, and in a 6 person party that's 150,000 gp tied up. When the cleric was assassinated the problem was two-fold, now they needed to find somebody to cast it.
4)Pretty much. A lot of people don't like when PC's die in a seemingly random fight or a fight with mooks. They believe the pc's should go out in a super heroic manner, and that's great for their games. In my game, the pc's need to know that combat is lethal and not everybody gets to go out making a noble sacrifice. Sometimes it won't make a lot of sense, and could even disrupt the story, but we're writing the story; it hasn't been written yet and even I as the DM don't know how it will end. While trekking across the Isle of Dread there was a random encounter with a vrock and the party fighter got carried off to his demise. If the party didn't want to risk their lives fighting a random monster they could have at least tried to run, but they chose to risk their lives. And the random encounters aren't just there as a game mechanic. The vrock showed up because the Isle of Dread is a super dangerous place inhabited by demons; that's also part of the story.
All that said, I'm not actively trying to kill pc's. Most monsters will leave a downed pc alone, and intelligent creatures might take prisoners or just steal gear, leaving the unconscious. And if the party makes a concerted and reasonable attempt to run away, it generally succeeds. I want to see the end of the Savage Tide as much as they want to finish it, and I don't foster a DM vs. player mentality. I referee, playing the monsters to their abilities, so if a monster has finger of death as a spell-like ability it will use it.
When it comes to character deaths while it does happen. It's certainly not enjoyable to happen. For people who said "if there is no threat of firing why play?" Why would you play a video game where you know if you die you come back from your last save point?
When it comes to character deaths while it does happen. It's certainly not enjoyable to happen. For people who said "if there is no threat of firing why play?" Why would you play a video game where you know if you die you come back from your last save point?
Because that is how a lot of video games are made, and I have accepted that before I even walk out of the store with the game. I don't look for the same things from different forms of entertainment. A video game, and a tabletop game may both be games, but the experience I want and expect from both are different. If the experience was not expected to be different then I would only need one to satisfy me.
When it comes to character deaths while it does happen. It's certainly not enjoyable to happen. For people who said "if there is no threat of firing why play?" Why would you play a video game where you know if you die you come back from your last save point?Because that is how a lot of video games are made, and I have accepted that before I even walk out of the store with the game. I don't look for the same things from different forms of entertainment. A video game, and a tabletop game may both be games, but the experience I want and expect from both are different. If the experience was not expected to be different then I would only need one to satisfy me.
I suppose the best answer then is everyone has their own reasons for playing and their own beliefs for pc deaths.
I once presented a list of optional campaigns for players to choose from. Each had a difficulty level attached to it from 1-5, with '3' being 'normal play will succeed, stupidity or bad luck will kill you'
I'd suggest utilizing such a scale and presenting the various options to your players (attached to specific story types or not).
Most of the campaigns were 3 or 4 (one a '2', where 'destiny' of the PCs was a factor, and 'happy ending' was more at risk than life). The players chose the single campaign with difficulty '5', 'Expect to lose several PCs. TPKs likely without superior play.'
It's not something I'd inflict on them unawares or by fiat, but that's what they wanted and we had a blast. Each venture became a true threat, and the emotions made for a heightened experience. And, since most PCs did live, the threat/emotions grew each time, especially when those TPKs loomed...This is a really interesting concept. I've never heard of a DM doing that. I assume you didn't fully flesh out the campaigns before running them. You had the seed for the campaigns, each of which would be a certain difficulty.
By the way, what are your standards for the various difficulties?
I have done this before also. I give them the premise of each story, and number attached to it before I modified it.
One adventure I ranked as a 7 as written, the other I ranked as a 9 or 9.5 as written with the highest level of difficulty on the scale being a 10.
I also asked them what level of difficult they wanted so I would know how much changing I had to do to each story.
The lowest I was willing to drop to was a 7 though in this case.
7-I try to make sure the dice don't kill you, but bad strategy might get you killed. I may also offer hints if you are about to make a bad tactical decision such as not using acrobatics or casting defensively. Monster with intelligence are ran to their intelligence until things swing to far in their favor then I use less tactics.
8-Same as 7, but no tactical advice is given. Story related hints are given. Monsters take things a little farther, most likely to the point of at least one PC dying before I begin to "forget" tactics.
9-No tactical advice. The dice might kill you except in very rare circumstances. The enemy's tactics do not decrease because you are about to die.
10-You get no dice fudging ever or tactical hints. I run it as if I am a merciless being. You might get story hints, but it will not be as quick. Even a level of 10 needs to be fun, and not advancing because the real life party notes got lost when the character would remember is not fun. I have never ran at this level because I only know one player other that would enjoy it.
I normally run at an 8.5 which basically means some battles are ran at 7's and 8's, and others especially boss fights are ran at 9's and 10's.
In short selecting an 8 does not mean all battles are 8's it means you will get a mixture of 7's, 8's, and 9's, but I will try to keep things around the an 8.