|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Ever have those player's who felt, and argued, that their character shouldn't die because they spent so long writing their back story?
I had a guy a few years ago write a huge back story for his Psionicist that took him days to come up with and about four hours to write out. Everything was going good until he ended up being killed by a group of wraiths. The other players had to eventually run so they couldn't grab his body. By the time they came back he had risen as a wrath and went off some where. Now the kicker is the player would not accept the death of his character. He argued with me about the amount of time he spent on his character and his back story. He felt that his character should have had a better ending and that I should have held back. I explained to him that a back story, and the time it took to write it, don't give your character any special treatment with regards to the rules. I told him that some games can work that way, when agreed upon, but my game didn't work that way. He knew right off the bat that I roll, and require everyone else, in the open and that I don't hold back. What he tried to do after that was bring in the old twin brother with the same story and everything. I told him that I would not accept that and he would need to create another character. He ended up leaving and missing a few sessions before returning and still asking about his character. I told him no and that I wasn't going to talk about it anymore. I told him to either make a new character or sit and watch everyone else play.
Anything like this ever happen to you?
|
|
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
I always warn my players that if they write more than a paragraph of backstory they risk wasting my time and their time. The interesting part of the story happens at the table, backstory exists to provide origins, context and a couple if plot hooks for the GM.
To expect special treatment with no indication of the fact is unreasonable.
I always warn my players that if they write more than a paragraph of backstory they risk wasting my time and their time. The interesting part of the story happens at the table, backstory exists to provide origins, context and a couple if plot hooks for the GM.
To expect special treatment with no indication of the fact is unreasonable.
Exactly. I'd add to this but it is perfect.
Backstory does not have any bearing on what happens in a game except for where it pertains to what your character should do in a given situation.
As far as roleplaying goes? Backstory is great. You know how your character should respond in certain situations. When in combat, getting drained by a wraith? Not really gonna help you there...
As a GM, it is perfectly reasonable to pull some strings to avoid killing players. It's also perfectly reasonable not to. Backstory still has nothing to do with that.
If a PC died, I would personally let that player create a new character with a similar backstory if they wanted to. That's their business, and if they were really looking forward to roleplaying that character, then they can have at it. That's just me, though. I would probably recommend they switch some things up so it's not ridiculously coincidental, but it's pretty much dependent on the GM and the group in question.
In the end though... S@!$ happens, yes? If a DM wants to be lenient and give the player a break, try to avoid having them die, that's nice of the DM. If not... welp.
Edit for a typo.
I agree with the other posters, but I'm gonna get out my umbrella. I have the vague sense that this thread is going to get derailed into extremes preeeetty soon. :P
Why not let him play the long lost twin brother? It's extreme, but it can be funny--see Beerfest for an excellent example of the trope.
If the player did not make his player character the sole member of the family who was a potential adventurer, it would involve a minimal amount of work to use that backstory to create a similar character who is a relative of the old one. (I am assuming that the other player characters did not come across as total jerks who got the first player character killed, of course.) The character would probably be of the same race and have many background elements in common, but class, ability scores, and other characteristics might be totally different. (I am also assuming that your game is not so lethal that Paranoia's six-packs of clones would actually be a good idea.)
Never happened to me yet. If the guy with the long backstory dies, I'm pretty sure the player will accept it.
They're already at the level where they soon learn to ressurect their own party members without the need for NPC help.
Nope, I've never told a player he isn't allowed to play and has to just sit and watch.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Nope, I've never told a player he isn't allowed to play and has to just sit and watch.
I told him to either make a new character or sit and watch everyone else play.
Not the same thing. Let's nip this confusion in the bud.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My answer to the player would be: "In real life there are every day people who deserve to live because their history and life's story is rich and fascinating, the tragedy is a lot of them die before they can complete their dreams or fulfill their potential. Your character was one of the could have beens, destiny cut short. If you can come up with a plausible story that is not a cliche or trope where a family member or friend wishes to complete his destiny feel free to do so. Otherwise start thinking of a new character concept and if you want to have narrative control over the life and death of your characters due to external forces it is best that you write a story."
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My advice for the dead guy would have been...
...get your group to kill the wraith, bring the remains to a Cleric to revive.
Nope, I've never told a player he isn't allowed to play and has to just sit and watch.I told him to either make a new character or sit and watch everyone else play.Not the same thing. Let's nip this confusion in the bud.
Yeah, that hasn't been included in the options I've given a player. Just saying.
I've never seen anyone argue that, no.
Of course, if the guy has a huge backstory, and dies early before getting to play out much of it, I'd say it was fair of him to salvage parts of it for a new character. Like, if you had some background or story hooks that you found really interesting, but didn't get to realize them in game, I don't think it'd be a problem to carry those over. If the player still finds it to be something he wants to explore, of course.
As an example, I had a character who had some very cool 'fluff' scheming going on in the background. Some stuff I'd discussed with the GM. But the campaign was rebooted before I actually got to execute those plans. It was still something I wanted to explore though, so I agreed with the GM to incorporate those plans into my new character and take it from there.
(Of course, the second campaign stopped long before those plans ever got even remotely close to being relevant, so it's still an unfulfilled dream :) )
|
|
I don't mind similar back stories but when your story is one of those super rare once in a lifetime type of characters and you want to bring in his twin brother because you loved that character to pieces then I just won't allow it because you have know gone from unique to common. Now if you write the story that leaves you some options just in case you died then that is a different story.
|
Character death has always posed social difficulties. Since I started playing in 1981 - I've seen situations occur that cause strong emotions within the players, based on what is happening to their character.
On the positive side, that player seems like someone who becomes vested in his characters. And... that's a good thing for the story and for the game.
Socially, however, character death often causes disputes between the players and the GM. And, on some level, once a character dies, there is little (other than what you have done) to do about it.
To be sure character death is a sensitive topic. It is one that drives many GMs toward the easy-peasy gamestyle where the players always win. After more than 30 years playing this game, I still struggle with this today. Killing characters is never easy - but the Pathfinder game is a good one, and I like how the OP rolls in the open. Whether you roll in the open or not, if the game doesn't provide enough challenge that death can occur players can lose interest. Conversely, when a player loses a character, depending on their maturity level and experience with the game, they may over-react emotionally due to their vested interest in the character.
Edit: Just because a backstory is a good one or lengthy doesn't mean character death will be waived. You probably did the right thing. GMs need to hold the line to make the game challenging --- but don't take any advice that suggests character development should be lessened. All players should continue to develop their characters regardless of when the spectre of death befalls their character.
OK slight rant so sorry in advance...
No-one told him to write the background for 4 hours so he gets no sympathy from me. To be honest from A GM's point of view this kind of background is very self indulgent and can end up being very selfish as the adventure then tends to be all me me me.
It can also be hard on the GM if the backstory does not follow the adventure as planned and the player wants certain parts of it to crop up in said adventure. I speak from experinece here as one of my players did the same thing, wrote a 2 page backstory, wanted his father and sister as NPC's somewhere, had a prophecy to fulfil and wanted to have a big part in the finale. He ended up writing his fathers prophecy of her which had nothing to do with the plot so I had to somehow fit everything in to the adventure. It made my life and the rest of the players life hell as he consitnly took centre stage all the time. Needless to say the adventure didn't last long.
Thankfully it didn't happen again.
I admire the amount of time, effort and love these players put in to their charcters but they should relise that the GM has an adventure to run and prep for and their are other players in the game too.
Backgrounds are great and very useful but too much is never a good thing couple of paragraphs is plenty and I encourage it...if his PC died then tough live with it and don't make the same mistake again you can't pander to his wishes every single time he makes a character.
Blimey...sounds a bit bitter lol, sorry if it does.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
One thing: Did the player know his character was essentially lost during all the time the other party members took to regroup and go back for him? I can easily see someone feeling put out if they had to sit and watch during all that time, with it possibly giving him the feeling that the silence on the matter led him to believe he had a very good shot at being brought back as the character he wanted to play. Letting that player know that getting their character back would be highly unlikely as soon as it became known to the GM would at least give them time to possibly come up with a new character to introduce sooner rather than later.
ALso, another vote here for players reusing concept elements they love but didn't get to explore for whatever reason. That's a huge reason why I'm bringing back my character from an imploded Kingmaker game for Wrath of the Righteous.
Yeah, that hasn't been included in the options I've given a player. Just saying.Nope, I've never told a player he isn't allowed to play and has to just sit and watch.I told him to either make a new character or sit and watch everyone else play.Not the same thing. Let's nip this confusion in the bud.
So what do you do when a PC dies? Let him regen instantly?
Make a new character or sit out are the usual options.
****
shallowsoul, I agree dead is dead. Depending on the situation, I might have let him run the "twin brother" scenario. I'd definitely draw the line at triplets.
|
|
One thing: Did the player know his character was essentially lost during all the time the other party members took to regroup and go back for him? I can easily see someone feeling put out if they had to sit and watch during all that time, with it possibly giving him the feeling that the silence on the matter led him to believe he had a very good shot at being brought back as the character he wanted to play. Letting that player know that getting their character back would be highly unlikely as soon as it became known to the GM would at least give them time to possibly come up with a new character to introduce sooner rather than later.
ALso, another vote here for players reusing concept elements they love but didn't get to explore for whatever reason. That's a huge reason why I'm bringing back my character from an imploded Kingmaker game for Wrath of the Righteous.
Basically the PC was Con drained down to 1 and then slain and the other PC's were drained as well but they managed to escape. They were afraid to go back until it was daylight but by then the PC had risen as a wraith and fled the scene to avoid the daylight.
I always warn my players that if they write more than a paragraph of backstory they risk wasting my time and their time. The interesting part of the story happens at the table, backstory exists to provide origins, context and a couple if plot hooks for the GM.
To expect special treatment with no indication of the fact is unreasonable.
Wow. Nailed my feelings exactly and in the second post no less!!!
I find nowadays backstory is almost unnecessary. As a player and GM I have a lot more fun revealing major backstory elements during play (a few times I have even sprung them on players as a surprise - so far with a 100% success rate!).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Nope, I've never told a player he isn't allowed to play and has to just sit and watch.
Well that's good. Glad everyone here in on the same page on this one!
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
"I will hide behind the pile of dead mes!"
Yeah, that hasn't been included in the options I've given a player. Just saying.
Well, what would you tell them? If they're refusing to make a new character, do you revive their last guy just to keep them from leaving? That can't be what you mean, but I don't see an alternative. If a player won't play, surely there's nothing else for him to do. Can't blame the GM for that.
Fake EDIT: Ninja'd by therealthom.
"I will hide behind the pile of dead mes!"
Any player who writes four pages of backstory for a bard is just kidding himself.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Amazing how you can get to the point where you know the author of a thread just by the title alone.
I've never ran into this sort of problem, and as a GM I've definitely killed some characters where the player put a lot of effort into the backstory. It's a game, not story time. Sometimes these things happen.
Didn't Savage Species have a class for free undead?
Yeah, that hasn't been included in the options I've given a player. Just saying.Nope, I've never told a player he isn't allowed to play and has to just sit and watch.I told him to either make a new character or sit and watch everyone else play.Not the same thing. Let's nip this confusion in the bud.So what do you do when a PC dies? Let him regen instantly?
Make a new character or sit out are the usual options.
****
shallowsoul, I agree dead is dead. Depending on the situation, I might have let him run the "twin brother" scenario. I'd definitely draw the line at triplets.
That's not the part I'm talking about. When giving a player options, I have never said "or you can sit in the corner and just watch". I don't talk to players like 5 year olds, unless they happen to actually be 5 year olds.
|
| 10 people marked this as a favorite. |
I am thankful to play approximately half-a world away from most of the GMs who posted above.
I believe that all we read above basically deter a player from getting involved in his character.
Why should we be surprised then that games turn into hack&slash fests with players having no involvement in the ROLE-playing part ?
If the common reaction of the player when his PC dies is supposed to be just a shrug and reaching for another PC sheet to fill with numbers, people have absolutely zero right to complain about players turning into power-munckins of the first order. Nor about players having zero interest in their GM's story.
After all why should they show respect for his efforts if the GM himself has zero respect for the effort of creation they put into their character's backstory ?
And frankly, this is the message I got from reading this thread, even if it was not the one intended (which was maybe just another rant thread against "entitled players").
I believe that respect and trust are the keys to having real fun with friends, especially in RPGs. And that they should not be one-way streets.
Yeah, that hasn't been included in the options I've given a player. Just saying.Well, what would you tell them? If they're refusing to make a new character, do you revive their last guy just to keep them from leaving? That can't be what you mean, but I don't see an alternative. If a player won't play, surely there's nothing else for him to do. Can't blame the GM for that.
Fake EDIT: Ninja'd by therealthom.
"I will hide behind the pile of dead mes!"Any player who writes four pages of backstory for a bard is just kidding himself.
I'd probably let him play the twin, for now. Then after the session I'd talk tithe about the campaign expectations and appropriate behavior for this table. If I and the other players were interested in a game where character death is normal and expected, I'd remind him of that and that he should be better prepared to deal with it happening to his character.
The options as presented, change your character or have a time out, to me is disrespectful and rude. The player is also being disrespectful, but the solution isn't to up the ante on how disrespectful we can be at each other.
|
RPG Superstar 2014 Top 32
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I am thankful to play approximately half-a world away from most of the GMs who posted above.
I believe that all we read above basically deter a player from getting involved in his character.
Why should we be surprised then that games turn into hack&slash fests with players having no involvement in the ROLE-playing part ?
If the common reaction of the player when his PC dies is supposed to be just a shrug and reaching for another PC sheet to fill with numbers, people have absolutely zero right to complain about players turning into power-munckins of the first order. Nor about players having zero interest in their GM's story.
After all why should they show respect for his efforts if the GM himself has zero respect for the effort of creation they put into their character's backstory ?
And frankly, this is the message I got from reading this thread, even if it was not the one intended (which was maybe just another rant thread against "entitled players").
I believe that respect and trust are the keys to having real fun with friends, especially in RPGs. And that they should not be one-way streets.
This. A million times this. The GMs goal is to provide fun. If this player is not reducing the fun for the other players, what is the point of taking this route? This great chase for risk? There are other ways to make it risky. Good narration, for one. High risk levels are also not necessary for fun.
Honestly, it's threads like this that make me question my decision to get into roleplaying. It feels almost as if people get frustrated that somebody is mixing *fun* into their math homework.
|
|
I am thankful to play approximately half-a world away from most of the GMs who posted above.
I believe that all we read above basically deter a player from getting involved in his character.
Why should we be surprised then that games turn into hack&slash fests with players having no involvement in the ROLE-playing part ?
If the common reaction of the player when his PC dies is supposed to be just a shrug and reaching for another PC sheet to fill with numbers, people have absolutely zero right to complain about players turning into power-munckins of the first order. Nor about players having zero interest in their GM's story.
After all why should they show respect for his efforts if the GM himself has zero respect for the effort of creation they put into their character's backstory ?
And frankly, this is the message I got from reading this thread, even if it was not the one intended (which was maybe just another rant thread against "entitled players").
I believe that respect and trust are the keys to having real fun with friends, especially in RPGs. And that they should not be one-way streets.
I don't think anyone is saying it should be a one-way street.
The player went overboard with the backstory. His energy was misplaced, and he got mad because it was wasted effort. What's a GM to do? Grant plot immunity because of a backstory? That would break the trust of the other players at the table. There needs to be an element of risk to the game or it has no meaning.
I respect my player's backstory. Here's an example of compelling back stories that will see payoff:
My character is an exiled prince from a foreign land, he stepped down from king hood and allowed his brother to take the throne. He seeks adventure, and freedom from responsibility.
My character was a carnival freak, picked on for his fiendish taint. He was in love with the bearded lady, but she chose the manipulative juggler over my character. So I ran away from the circus, I adventure to forget about my broken heart.
My character is a mighty warrior given a vision quest by his shaman to bring peace between the tribe lands and civilisation. Unfortunately he has the diplomatic talents of a bull elephant.
Great back stories. Two sentences each, they represent a huge amount for the character but leave the interesting bit for the table. That's called Show don't Tell. It makes for good writing and great role-playing.
|
RPG Superstar 2014 Top 32
|
I should point out here that I don't like HUGE back stories either...but I also chafe when I hear the idea that nothing from a short lived pc can be used again. Personally, I like painting minis of my characters. I'm not good at it, but I enjoy it. If my character dies on his first mission, do I toss that mini?
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I am thankful to play approximately half-a world away from most of the GMs who posted above.
I believe that all we read above basically deter a player from getting involved in his character.
Why should we be surprised then that games turn into hack&slash fests with players having no involvement in the ROLE-playing part ?
If the common reaction of the player when his PC dies is supposed to be just a shrug and reaching for another PC sheet to fill with numbers, people have absolutely zero right to complain about players turning into power-munckins of the first order. Nor about players having zero interest in their GM's story.
After all why should they show respect for his efforts if the GM himself has zero respect for the effort of creation they put into their character's backstory ?
And frankly, this is the message I got from reading this thread, even if it was not the one intended (which was maybe just another rant thread against "entitled players").
I believe that respect and trust are the keys to having real fun with friends, especially in RPGs. And that they should not be one-way streets.
Your post would actually make some sense if that was what we are talking about but it isn't.
Why can't you get deeply involved in your character, end up being in a situation where you die, accept the death and move on to another concept and story or is that one story your only one you can come up with?
Three sessions into my Savage Tide campaign, I got my first dead PC ever. It so happened to be the one with whose player I'd done the most brainstorming, backstory discussion, and plans to integrate into the plot. That all went out the window, as did the other PC who died (though admittedly his was extremely minor, the opposite of the first) and two of the three other party members, who had their characters leave when the other two died.
On the upside, replacing all but one member of the party essentially gave me a freebie on having to pick up plot hooks
|
Why can't you get deeply involved in your character, end up being in a situation where you die, accept the death and move on to another concept and story or is that one story your only one you can come up with?
Just some thoughts:
In Roleplaying Games, there are two things important for me personally: Story and character development within the frame of said story. I couldn't care less about the rules and I'm not into the tactical and strategical part of the game. I also have come to hate the technical part of character building, so I'd rather write a four-or-more-pages character background than building a new character.
So just as I would hate to read a novel/watch a movie where the character suffers death without meaning just to get replaced by some new and 'til then non-existent character, I don't like it too much if that happens in a roleplaying session. I'm well aware though that something like this can happen but it's nothing I'm looking for or think to be an essential/important part of the game.
Meaning that in the meantime I've come to prefer combat-light games with the focus on storytelling and character development and even when playing D&D/PF I'd rather avoid no-holds-barred-style games so that I can concentrate on those parts of the game I'm actually enjoying.
Nonetheless I agree with DM aka Dudemeister: without any risk there's no meaningful action. One the other hands there are a lot of risks to take without the consequence of failure being character death. So I wouldn't go so far as to say that a game where no one dies was meaningless. Because at the end of the day, the meaning of the game is not to win it but to have fun with one's friends.
I am thankful to play approximately half-a world away from most of the GMs who posted above.
I believe that all we read above basically deter a player from getting involved in his character.
Why should we be surprised then that games turn into hack&slash fests with players having no involvement in the ROLE-playing part ?
If the common reaction of the player when his PC dies is supposed to be just a shrug and reaching for another PC sheet to fill with numbers, people have absolutely zero right to complain about players turning into power-munckins of the first order. Nor about players having zero interest in their GM's story.
After all why should they show respect for his efforts if the GM himself has zero respect for the effort of creation they put into their character's backstory ?
And frankly, this is the message I got from reading this thread, even if it was not the one intended (which was maybe just another rant thread against "entitled players").
I believe that respect and trust are the keys to having real fun with friends, especially in RPGs. And that they should not be one-way streets.
Let's not blow the implications of this conversation out of proportion. There's a middle way between multiple pages of purple prose detailing the back story of a PC's special snowflake and PC-stats-of-the-day (or round, as the case may be). Unless the players and GM have agreed that there's plot immunity, a player can't expect to have it just because they've become attached to their PC and lavish extravagant attention on their story.
As GM, I like it when PCs have stories that I can use to help ground the PC (and player) in the campaign. Some history and story is helpful. But the players should also recognize that their PC may fail and failure may be fatal. And that shouldn't be viewed as a reason to rage, but an opportunity to try other ideas.
I played Rolemaster (still my favourite game) - it took 3 hours to make a character, then you could die in fighting a blind goblin armed with a toothpick.
A friend had his knight who had a 3 page back story killed in his first combat when he fumbled his lance attack.
When a character dies its an opportunity to be creative again. Death is not a negative.
|
|
2) RPGs can be pretty much exactly like novels if that is the way you want them to be, so why not just get a group that runs that way instead of acting like what you want is some kind of unattainable thing?
Well, just in case that you referred to my post above: That's exactly what I did :)
As for the rest:
How do novels always get brought into the discussion as an explanation of how character death throws them off their interest in the story?
Depending on the book, I read it because of the characters first and because of the story second. For example, I'm looking forward to reading Queen of Thorns mainly because of Varian and Radovan. Now I'm quite sure that I'll also like the story but I'm absolutely sure that, if one of those two should die that it would be a meaningful dead (aka for dramatic reasons). If not, that would probably be the end of me reading anything from Dave Gross.
So the point is that character death in novels is quite different from my PC dying just because of a poor roll of the dice.
certainly a book where a couple chapters here and there introduce a completely unrelated character and events happening to him that lead to his eventual inclusion
But that is not what happens in most games. Instead what happens most of the time has been ingeniously caricatured in "The Gamers". There's no introduction, just: "You seem trustworthy! Care to join us in our noble quest?"
The options as presented, change your character or have a time out, to me is disrespectful and rude. The player is also being disrespectful, but the solution isn't to up the ante on how disrespectful we can be at each other.
The player's character dies and effectively refuses to play a different character. You would rather endorse his tantrum than stand up to the guy and tell him "follow the game's rules, or don't play the game".
I'm afraid I completely disagree with you. We're not gonna get anywhere here. :P
RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 16, RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32
|
My current group is about to start their fourth year and seventh campaign. I played in five of them and ran one. I will be playing in the seventh.
Out of my six PCs, only a couple of them haven't had a backstory that I spent considerable time on.
Two PCs in particular have had a great deal written about their backstory but in both cases I read all I could about the campaign setting and talked to the GM about specific details. I never put anything in the backstory that would make the GM work harder or that would grant my character something special. I did put things in it that could be used against my character or as plot hooks.
The most recent character of the two had 80% of it written before the game started and it probably was about 5 pages or more of material. The rest of the group have written up a backstory for their characters but not anything close to what I did.
Now, would I be disappointed if my character died? Yeah, I would. Would I argue that he should be brought back to life because of my work? No.
I would create a new character and write up a detailed backstory. There have been a few times where I started thinking of new character concepts because of how bad things were getting.
Insisting that you should be treated special because you spent time on a backstory is a bit childish. The backstory is for you to know how to act and why. It should be there to drive decisions and provide a bit of conflict that is personal. From the GM side of things, it should provide NPCs that could be called upon to provide conflict or plot hooks. It shouldn't be used to grant discounted items, immunity from law, or special treatment.
The character in the upcoming seventh campaign already has his backstory completed. It is detailed but not as much as the one for my current character. If he dies in the first game, I'll just deal with it.
Really, having a character die may suck, but it is part of the experience. If you invest hours of time into detailing your character's backstory, that's great, but you do need realize that character death is a thing that happens. If you are highly attached to your character, take care not to let them die. It's as simple as that.
I don't know exactly how the original situation with the wraiths played out, such as whether the player went into the middle of them, just got jumped unexpectedly, or whatever. But it is a part of the game, and death is (admittedly beatable but) very real possibility in the game.
If the players and DM are just interested in telling a story, and they come to an agreement beforehand that the narrative takes precedence, that's all well and good. Your group is on the same page. But unless noted as such, the DM does not need to make concessions for the players. Personally, I'd be quite sad if I accidentally killed a PC, and I would probably try to shenanigans the PC to safety, but that's a personal choice for me.
If the common reaction of the player when his PC dies is supposed to be just a shrug and reaching for another PC sheet to fill with numbers, people have absolutely zero right to complain about players turning into power-munckins of the first order. Nor about players having zero interest in their GM's story.
Problem with this is that you are assuming that if the GM doesn't keep the PC alive, then that encourages players to have no attachment to their characters. I disagree. A player can be dismayed if their character dies. In all honesty, I think they should be. That implies that they did have a strong connection to the character, and wanted them to live.
It's unfortunate if a character dies, but sometimes, them's the breaks. If a player really is invested in the game, and interested in role-playing and developing their character through the game, then seeing a PC die should encourage them to take more care next time, and play with an even stronger attachment to their new character.
A friend had his knight who had a 3 page back story killed in his first combat when he fumbled his lance attack.
When a character dies its an opportunity to be creative again. Death is not a negative.
This. I currently have a character who I've written 5 pages of backstory for and he's level 1 (you know, that level where you can die in a couple unlucky hits.) If he dies in some stupid/dishonorable manner, I will be sad. Then I will make another character, possibly write out another backstory (though maybe not, I only did that because this particular concept seemed fun. It varies). Then I will join the game with my new character, and hopefully not see him/her dead.
The options as presented, change your character or have a time out, to me is disrespectful and rude. The player is also being disrespectful, but the solution isn't to up the ante on how disrespectful we can be at each other.The player's character dies and effectively refuses to play a different character. You would rather endorse his tantrum than stand up to the guy and tell him "follow the game's rules, or don't play the game".
I'm afraid I completely disagree with you. We're not gonna get anywhere here. :P
I play games with people I like. So if a player is upset, that's an issue for me, because I like them and would prefer them to not be upset. If they're truly being disruptive, I would ask them to leave the game, at least for the moment.
When Shallowsoul says the player throws a fit, I take that with a grain of salt, because every week he posts a new thread about a player throwing a fit because they didn't like a decision he made.
So let's assume the player isn't throwing a tantrum like a 3 y/o, but is rather being an adult, maybe a little unreasonable and very insistent. Since I probably like them, because I usually play games with people I like, I'm willing to accommodate them in order to keep the game moving smoothly and increase everyone's fun for the evening. To me, fun is the most important aspect of the game, not which backstory a player is using. So really, I don't care about his characters backstory as long as it is adding to the fun.
So yes, barring violent behavior or doing an impression of a 3 y/o, I don't care and will let the player use the character that is most fun for them and everyone else combined.
|
RPG Superstar 2014 Top 32
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The problem that I have with the "reality is harsh, move on" crowd is twofold. First, I play these games to get away from reality. If I wanted reality, I'd close the rulebooks and, well, live. But, no, I play these games because I would prefer a different reality, a more interesting one and one in which good usually wins. For me, the fun is less in the risk and the optimization and more about the shared fantasy and storytelling.
When you say that people should just move on, it does necessarily mean that they will attach themselves to their characters less. If your approach is one in which you go through PCs much like toilet paper, I guarantee that your players will have just as much attachment to them. Based on what was said in the OP, it sounds as if the party went into a situation that was really overpowered for their level - in a situation like that, I actually consider it to be more the GM (or adventure designer)'s fault for creating an unwinnable encounter. In a situation like that, it is perfectly reasonable to talk about redoing it.
Let's change the situation a bit. Let's say that you spent an awful lot of time tracking down the perfect wine. You believe it to be a 1959 Chateau d'Pricey Chardonnay. You spend an awful lot of time tracking it down, and as you open the bottle, it slips from your hand and shatters. You would be right to be a bit upset. But, life sucks, doesn't it?
Or how about you are a mathematician who spends your life working on a particular problem, only to find that your rival has beaten you to the punch and publishes a few days before you do? Sucks to be you.
Well, sure. But in these cases, there is nothing that can be done. In the case of PC death, things are much less irreversible. Such is the value and the opportunity presented in a non-reality setting.
The problem that I have with the "reality is harsh, move on" crowd is twofold. First, I play these games to get away from reality. If I wanted reality, I'd close the rulebooks and, well, live. But, no, I play these games because I would prefer a different reality, a more interesting one and one in which good usually wins. For me, the fun is less in the risk and the optimization and more about the shared fantasy and storytelling.
When you say that people should just move on, it does necessarily mean that they will attach themselves to their characters less. If your approach is one in which you go through PCs much like toilet paper, I guarantee that your players will have just as much attachment to them. Based on what was said in the OP, it sounds as if the party went into a situation that was really overpowered for their level - in a situation like that, I actually consider it to be more the GM (or adventure designer)'s fault for creating an unwinnable encounter. In a situation like that, it is perfectly reasonable to talk about redoing it.
Let's change the situation a bit. Let's say that you spent an awful lot of time tracking down the perfect wine. You believe it to be a 1959 Chateau d'Pricey Chardonnay. You spend an awful lot of time tracking it down, and as you open the bottle, it slips from your hand and shatters. You would be right to be a bit upset. But, life sucks, doesn't it?
Or how about you are a mathematician who spends your life working on a particular problem, only to find that your rival has beaten you to the punch and publishes a few days before you do? Sucks to be you.
Well, sure. But in these cases, there is nothing that can be done. In the case of PC death, things are much less irreversible. Such is the value and the opportunity presented in a non-reality setting.
Tissue paper, not toilet: I cry over every brave soldier.
I'm really asking, are you saying the DM should fudge her roles for the sake of PC survival, or that you shouldn't sweat being killed because raise death is always an option? (It's sort a Robert Frost, "Two roads in the woods diverged..." situation.)
|
RPG Superstar 2014 Top 32
|
QuoteTissue paper, not toilet: I cry over every brave soldier.
I'm really asking, are you saying the DM should fudge her roles for the sake of PC survival, or that you shouldn't sweat being killed because raise death is always an option? (It's sort a Robert Frost, "Two roads in the woods diverged..." situation.)
I would support fudging of rolls to protect players who have just had some bad luck or who are not being stupid, yes. Gary Gygax suggested as much in one of his books.
I am not suggesting that you shouldn't sweat death due to Raise Dead. I am, however, suggesting that if you are going to take a hard line approach and a player character dies, one that they have invested time and emotion in, you should concede at least a few things to them. At the very least, make it seem like you care. Many of the people here seem completely heartless in that regard. To me, at least, it sounds as if instead of tissue paper, most of the GMs here would offer a blank character sheet to cry on, one that you should be less attached to.