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.
And how does a single character death break your goals of experiencing a "more interesting" world where "good usually wins"? It seems to me for good to usually win, then at some point good has to lose. How come this character death isn't one of those times?
For me, the fun is less in the risk and the optimization and more about the shared fantasy and storytelling.
Fine. But you realise risk is part and parcel of the system, right? Those ACs and HPs aren't for show... at least not for the vast majority of players.
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.
Two things - first, you are making a hell of a lot of assumptions about the scenario. All he said was hero group with a Psionicist goes up against a group of wraiths. That could be a fair fight or a landslide either way depending on the unstated character levels.
Second, calling it 'unwinnable' is silly. What if the 'winning' move was for the characters to run away? As long as they could make tracks - they had a choice in the matter. It wasn't an escape-proof death trap or the Kobeyashi Maru.
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 opportunity to change 'reality' in a game, isn't the issue. It's not a question of what you can do, it's a question of what you should do.
RPG Superstar 2014 Top 32
|
...And how does a single character death break your goals of experiencing a "more interesting" world where "good usually wins"? It seems to me for good to usually win, then at some point good has to lose. How come this character death isn't one of those times?
...Fine. But you realise risk is part and parcel of the system, right? Those ACs and HPs aren't for show... at least not for the vast majority of players.
...Two things - first, you are making a hell of a lot of assumptions about the scenario. All he said was hero group with a Psionicist goes up against a group of wraiths. That could be a fair fight or a landslide either way depending on the unstated character levels.
Second, calling it 'unwinnable' is silly. What if the 'winning' move was for the characters to run away? As long as they could make tracks - they had a choice in the matter. It wasn't an escape-proof death trap or the Kobeyashi Maru.
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 opportunity to change 'reality' in a game, isn't the issue.
1) This character death is not one of those times because the player spent a good deal of time and effort into a character that will realistically never see the light of day. While I agree and understand that good sometimes has to lose, perhaps the GM could take some steps to mitigate the situation.
2) I do realize that risk is necessary for the system, but I think that there are better ways to handle it than this. Have there be a greater risk of failing a mission that will have plot consequences. Use good storytelling and narrative to build up the suspense. Set the mood. Adrenaline and risk are less about numbers and more of a mental thing - use that to your advantage without having to crush a players' hopes.
3) I said that it sounded like a potentially unwinnable one. While I don't know the scenario or the setting, it sounds to me like this is a homemade campaign rather than a published one. Generally speaking, the first adventure of a published campaign won't get a near-TPK unless the party is really dumb, which didn't seem the issue in the OP. If the OP did design the campaign, then it sounds like he overestimated the players or underestimated the wraiths. Yes, the party could run away, but only after they realized the danger of the situation, which likely wasn't apparent until this PC was dead.
4) The opportunity to change reality is absolutely the issue. There have been GMs here who say that it is wrong to allow for a similar character to be used because it is not "realistic." I ask you - why should we aim for realism when it hampers the fun of the players?
A lot of background text does not protect you from the roll of the die.
In what way do you mean?
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
...And how does a single character death break your goals of experiencing a "more interesting" world where "good usually wins"? It seems to me for good to usually win, then at some point good has to lose. How come this character death isn't one of those times?
...Fine. But you realise risk is part and parcel of the system, right? Those ACs and HPs aren't for show... at least not for the vast majority of players.
...Two things - first, you are making a hell of a lot of assumptions about the scenario. All he said was hero group with a Psionicist goes up against a group of wraiths. That could be a fair fight or a landslide either way depending on the unstated character levels.
Second, calling it 'unwinnable' is silly. What if the 'winning' move was for the characters to run away? As long as they could make tracks - they had a choice in the matter. It wasn't an escape-proof death trap or the Kobeyashi Maru.
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 opportunity to change 'reality' in a game, isn't the issue.1) This character death is not one of those times because the player spent a good deal of time and effort into a character that will realistically never see the light of day. While I agree and understand that good sometimes has to lose, perhaps the GM could take some steps to mitigate the situation.
2) I do realize that risk is necessary for the system, but I think that there are better ways to handle it than this. Have there be a greater risk of failing a mission that will have plot consequences. Use good storytelling and narrative to build up the suspense. Set the mood. Adrenaline and risk are less about numbers and more of a mental thing - use that to your...
Here's a little advice.
No matter whether you're playing a published adventure or a homemade one, any encounter can turn into a TPK. If the creatures roll really really well and the PC's really really bad then you can end up needing to run away from an encounter you would normally be able to handle. Encounters with incorporeal creatures can become very "swingy" because of the miss chance.
I'm not going to go against a creature's normal actions in order to keep a PC alive. Wraith's don't take pity on an adventurer who has gone down, they will come over and finish the job.
I'm not sure if you've forgotten but the game is played with dice so that should tell you something about the default nature of the game.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
In what way do you mean?Allowing the brother situation, or allowing him to use a lot of the backstory/personality/character art/miniature/whatever that he had planned for the dead PC. Nothing mechanical, all fluff.
I like to keep my worlds consistent and actually make sense so having the twin brother just show up at just the right time doesn't fly with my DMing style. Like I have said before, if you've written your background to allow another family member into the picture then fair enough but if you write like you are a super rarity then I'm sorry but you are going against your own background just so you can continue with your character.
|
RPG Superstar 2014 Top 32
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I wonder why you started the thread if you felt so confident about your choices.
Regardless, Gary Gygax said in "Role-playing Mastery",
"The dedicated GM is not only an impartial judge of events, but at the same time he is an active force championing the cause of both the preservation of the PCs not bent on self-destruction and the continued satisfaction of players who do not seek to see the campaign ruined. Conversely, he has no ethical or moral obligation to keep a PC alive and viable if that character's player insists on leaping into the jaws of adversity - and he owes it to himself and the others in the group to discipline or dismiss a player who has a selfish and treacherous attitude towards the campaign."
I don't think that I can say it any better than the developer himself. The dice are the default mode, yes, but sometimes the default must be overridden. I think this was one of those situations.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I wonder why you started the thread if you felt so confident about your choices.
You must be new here. :)
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As a game unto itself, I can see the "character backstory must be ten words or less" idea being plausible or even enjoyable, as long as the whole group agrees that this should be the way of it. My philosophy: Backstory starts a character; adventures refine it.
If I write a backstory for a character and it takes hours, it doesn't save me from the impartiality of my GM's dice or the module/session adventure.
The whole my-way-or-the-highway thing? Not so cool with my group. We tend to rule by consensus, with the GM having final vote as needed.
|
|
I don't think that I can say it any better than the developer himself. The dice are the default mode, yes, but sometimes the default must be overridden. I think this was one of those situations.
Why?
Why should that particular character get their way?
Dice are the part of the game that makes it fair for "everyone", remember that word very carefully. The dice "are" the deciding factor of the game in the most fair way possible. There are many ways to actually play the game but I'm just making it clear that a backstory does not give your character an increased survival rate in my games nor does it in any of the rule books.
|
RPG Superstar 2014 Top 32
|
To be clear, I am not saying that this character should get preferential treatment for his back-story. I am saying that his back-story makes your particular ruling much harsher and more personal, and for that reason, you should reconsider your approach to *all* PCs.
As for the dice being the most fair way to decide, this is true if you are deciding amongst outcomes which produce equal enjoyment. This is rarely the case. "The Game" - the opposition to the players - is not an entity which deserves equal fairness. There is nobody there to be slighted. If fudging increases the enjoyment of the table, I fail to see who is hurt.
Also, I just noticed a shameful typo in my previous post.
The player's character dies and effectively refuses to play a different character.
I forgot a "he". Ohhh, the shame.
|
|
To be clear, I am not saying that this character should get preferential treatment for his back-story. I am saying that his back-story makes your particular ruling much harsher and more personal, and for that reason, you should reconsider your approach to *all* PCs.
As for the dice being the most fair way to decide, this is true if you are deciding amongst outcomes which produce equal enjoyment. This is rarely the case. "The Game" - the opposition to the players - is not an entity which deserves equal fairness. There is nobody there to be slighted. If fudging increases the enjoyment of the table, I fail to see who is hurt.
All player's that are familiar with table top RPG's know that dice are a part of the game and always have been since the 70's. Coming to the table with the shock factor of "Oh my god, that DM is using dice" is just absurd. If your "enjoyment" comes from the game being played outside the default and you won't budge from that then you are limiting yourself to specific groups that run those specific types of games. If that's your cup of tea then have at it but to actually hint that not playing this way is wrong in anyway is itself, wrong.
Tell you what I'll do. I'll make a deal with you. Since your character spent hours on his backstory and it would ruin your fun if I didn't change the campaign to suit his needs then how about we do the same for all those NPC's and unique creatures that took my hours upon hours to build? In all fairness, I don't want my fun ruined either.
|
|
I don't think that I can say it any better than the developer himself. The dice are the default mode, yes, but sometimes the default must be overridden. I think this was one of those situations.
Why?
Why should that particular character get their way?
Dice are the part of the game that makes it fair for "everyone", remember that word very carefully. The dice "are" the deciding factor of the game in the most fair way possible. There are many ways to actually play the game but I'm just making it clear that a backstory does not give your character an increased survival rate in my games nor does it in any of the rule books.
"Fair"? Dice don't make things fair and I don't particularly care about fair anyway. It isn't a competition. As long as everyone's having fun what difference does it make.
And there are many ways for the GM to screw over (or favor) a particular character/player while never fudging a single die roll.That said, I don't think huge detailed backstories should give anyone a better chance. OTOH, if you want such backstories, and more importantly character depth, a high random death rate isn't the way to get them.
Actually it does. I'm not sure which role playing game you've been playing but it doesn't sound like it was Pathfinder.
Do your games break out in arguments of "I hit you, no you did not, you missed", or do you take turns trading blows?
Oooo I know, let's play Monopoly and instead of using dice we just say where we want our little game pieces to land. I'm taking Boardwalk first!
|
RPG Superstar 2014 Top 32
|
I'm not shocked that you're using dice, nor am I shocked that you are taking this approach. Disappointed? A bit. But not shocked. If you take the attitude that "Oh, I'm sorry, you died. Your hours these last few weeks have been for nothing, I'm not letting you use any of it ever again for all eternity because I rolled a 19 instead of an 18," then I can fully understand why your player reacted the way that they did. The ghouls got lucky, the player was unlucky and had severe, unintended and unwelcome consequences for it. Consequences that the player knew COULD arise, but didn't really want to. Fine. But now the ball is in your court - what do you do about it? Do you lose a player in order to keep your game "fair", or do you allow him to modify the character slightly and bring it back in? Can you at least see why he would be angry?
I'm not suggesting changing the campaign in any way. I'm suggesting *not* changing it and letting the player's new character at least borrow elements from his old one. Your attitude throughout this thread reads to me like something of a power trip - you didn't like the fact that he wrote so much unnecessary backstory (which, while annoying, wasn't hurting anybody else) and were completely unsympathetic when his work was ruined.
As a side note, yes, dice have been a part of this game for 30 odd years. So has PC fatality. Rather famously, Gygax's Tomb of Horrors module was a slaughterhouse. However, two prominent characters who died in that scenario (Robilar and Tenser) went on to be featured in a lot of other material and were presumably still played by their players. I ask you - did that ruin anything? I do not think so.
As the guy who does enjoy writing ~2000 words of character backstory (mostly for my own benefit) I can honestly say no, I don't expect special treatment because I did so. It's something I did of my own accord, and if that work is wasted, tough noogies, character ideas are easy to come by (and fun to write).
Though I do appreciate it if the GM takes small parts into consideration from the backstory if they can easily be worked into the adventure.
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.
If the player acts like a 5 year old I see no reason not to treat them like one. Immaturity and childishness is not age restricted.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Actually it does. I'm not sure which role playing game you've been playing but it doesn't sound like it was Pathfinder.
Do your games break out in arguments of "I hit you, no you did not, you missed", or do you take turns trading blows?
Oooo I know, let's play Monopoly and instead of using dice we just say where we want our little game pieces to land. I'm taking Boardwalk first!
Nope, my games don't break out in arguments. Evidently yours do, since you post a new thread about how a entitled player throws a fit every week.
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.If the player acts like a 5 year old I see no reason not to treat them like one. Immaturity and childishness is not age restricted.
I usually game with friends. Would you honestly recommend to me that I should up the ante of disrespectful behavior when having a disagreement with a friend?
Also, when I say "act like a 5 y/o", I meant very literally, as in behavior indistinguishable from that of a 5 y/o, which as both a gamer and a semi-professional nanny, I have never seen at the gaming table, ever.
So yeah, if a friend is upset at the table, I'm willing to accommodate them in the short term and address it a little more forcefully in the long run.
Accommodating them in the short term just leads to problems later. Making it very clear that no miracle from god is going to magic his character back to life from the get-go is going to cut off any problems that would arise from accommodating him in the future.
You don't have to be a dick about it, but you should, I believe, make it clear that just because he spent more time on something OF HIS OWN VOLITION he should not get preferential treatment.
Tell him to feel free to roll up a new character and enjoy the rest of the game if he likes, and wait for him if he chooses that route, but that particular character is not coming back unless in those 4 pages he wrote something in about family members in the same business. If he doesn't want to roll up a new character, I see no reason why you should halt the game for the other players when there's no purpose for it.
Hell, have him roll up a new guy, play for a while, get his corpse back, and then resurrect the old character. Just don't baby the man.
Also, somewhat off topic, this behavior is very similar to many 5 year olds I've had the pleasure of dealing with "Clean up all those blocks on the floor and come eat."
"But I was building with them =(."
"You can build with them when we get done with dinner."
"Okay."
I take it back. The 5 year old was more mature about it.
|
RPG Superstar 2014 Top 32
|
I guess I'm just looking at it from a player perspective and thinking about how disappointed I would be dying permanently and unsatisfactorily in the first encounter. I feel as if the GM is doing the entire group a disservice by not trying to make at least some amends for this exceptional situation.
This isn't a problem I'm having by the way. I'm not the OP.
You don't have to be a dick about it, but you should, I believe, make it clear that just because he spent more time on something OF HIS OWN VOLITION he should not get preferential treatment.
You know, I use this same reasoning about GMs on this board all the time.
Also, in one of my groups we have an old joke about Boromir from a RPG standpoint, that's basically the OP story.
Also, what is so game breaking about the twin? The original character obviously fit the campaign enough to be allowed to play, if it keeps the player interested isn't that a good thing? If this is a trope that isn't used often in the group, I don't see the problem.
This isn't a problem I'm having by the way. I'm not the OP.
You know, I use this same reasoning about GMs on this board all the time.
You don't have to be a dick about it, but you should, I believe, make it clear that just because he spent more time on something OF HIS OWN VOLITION he should not get preferential treatment.
Except the GM is running the game. Without the GM, there would be no game. You can lose a player and do fine. You lose a GM you need to find a new one or do it yourself, in which case the new guy does the work and calls the shots.
He is the one to arbitrate disputes, set the path, and all that jazz. They're not comparable situations. It's like saying "that guy at work shouldn't get preferential treatment just because he does community service work every other weekend" and then turning around and saying "YEAH? Well our boss shouldn't get paid more for being in a managerial position."
|
|
Overall, here is what I am seeing from a few posters.
You are quick to jump on the story is important bandwagon but the thing is, the only story you are worried about is your own. You would have the DM jeopardize and/or change the story just so you can continue with your own story or even have the nature of creatures change in order to accommodate you.
That is what it's all down to, your fun and your story. Now if you are truly all for the story and role playing then you will see that trying to change things in order to bring back your favorite character isn't always going to be an option storywise and it needs to be accepted.
I'm sorry but we don't always go out in a blaze of glory or die exactly like we want to, that's the name of the game and has been for many many years. Your legacy is written and finished when you stand alive and well at the end of the campaign, not before it begins and not while it's in motion because one encounter can change everything, one bad roll can end it all but that's how it goes. If you don't make it to the end then it wasn't meant to be.
Main characters usually survive in novels because of money. Could you honestly see Drizzt being killed during Homeland? That's why using the "novel" analogy isn't good.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Your legacy is written and finished when you stand alive and well at the end of the campaign, not before it begins and not while it's in motion because one encounter can change everything, one bad roll can end it all but that's how it goes. If you don't make it to the end then it wasn't meant to be.
Probably the biggest problem with writing enormous backstory that is somehow supposed to grant plot armor via things that have happened in the character's past. Really, it seems fairly intuitive to me that backstory has nothing to do with what happens to your character. All it can really affect is what you already have control over.
This isn't a problem I'm having by the way. I'm not the OP.
You know, I use this same reasoning about GMs on this board all the time.
You don't have to be a dick about it, but you should, I believe, make it clear that just because he spent more time on something OF HIS OWN VOLITION he should not get preferential treatment.
Except the GM is running the game. Without the GM, there would be no game. You can lose a player and do fine. You lose a GM you need to find a new one or do it yourself, in which case the new guy does the work and calls the shots.
He is the one to arbitrate disputes, set the path, and all that jazz. They're not comparable situations. It's like saying "that guy at work shouldn't get preferential treatment just because he does community service work every other weekend" and then turning around and saying "YEAH? Well our boss shouldn't get paid more for being in a managerial position."
My experience tells me you are wrong. Are you saying I just imagined it?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Overall, here is what I am seeing from a few posters.
You are quick to jump on the story is important bandwagon but the thing is, the only story you are worried about is your own. You would have the DM jeopardize and/or change the story just so you can continue with your own story or even have the nature of creatures change in order to accommodate you.
Mostly I just see you starting a new thread each week about how a player flipped out because they didn't like how you did something.
Either you need to figure out better ways to find new players, or there is something you're leaving out of these stories.
I guess my biggest problem here is more one of attitude than it is one of mechanics. There are some here who seem to almost *revel* in the fact that his character died. That is highly off-putting to me as a player.
I certainly don't think anyone should be glad to see a PC die, and a GM that takes pride in regularly killing his players sounds kind of like an a@~!++$ to me. (That gets filtered? Huh.)
That said, if a player has bad luck, it isn't really the GM's job to keep that PC alive either. The game is built around the roll of the dice, and sometimes the dice gods will want you dead, whether you regularly sacrifice chickens to them or not.
When that happens, it's just as much a part of the story as the player getting that absolutely perfect critical against the BBEG, when said PC is one turn from getting knocked out and the rest of the party is already bleeding out or otherwise incapacitated. It adds variance to the game, with a real possibility of failure, and that much more meaning when you win.
I dunno, maybe that's just me, but I feel that it really should heighten a player's investment in the game.
My experience tells me you are wrong. Are you saying I just imagined it?
Your experience tells you that the GM doesn't run the game?
Maybe you didn't imagine it, but you're definitely not playing the same game the rest of us are.
My experience tells me you are wrong. Are you saying I just imagined it?Your experience tells you that the GM doesn't run the game?
Maybe you didn't imagine it, but you're definitely not playing the same game the rest of us are.
My experience tells me a GM is just as replaceable as a player. I've even had a GM replaced and just continued with the same game.
If you want to have a discussion on GM power and authority I'm game, but we can probably resurrect a previous thread or start a new one.
|
RPG Superstar 2014 Top 32
|
Darkwolf: Personally, it would lessen my engagement in the game. I would likely design a character that I cared little for, so that if they died, I wouldn't really care all that much. Why would I willingly engage my sympathies for a character who is to die easily? That being said, I prefer the acting aspect of RPGs heavily to the combat areas. I know that I am in the minority. But, every party needs at least one person like me, otherwise the table just sort of sits there in an awkward silence.
Darkwolf: Personally, it would lessen my engagement in the game. I would likely design a character that I cared little for, so that if they died, I wouldn't really care all that much. Why would I willingly engage my sympathies for a character who is to die easily? That being said, I prefer the acting aspect of RPGs heavily to the combat areas. I know that I am in the minority. But, every party needs at least one person like me, otherwise the table just sort of sits there in an awkward silence.
I don't think you necessarily need to differentiate the roleplaying from the combat. I do enjoy combat, but my characters still have personality, and will respond as befits them in other scenarios.
As for specifically designing a character you don't like in case they do get killed... that just sounds like you're setting yourself up to not enjoy the game, and to let the character die if/when it becomes even a remote possibility.
I personally play characters I like, and I do become invested in them. Does that mean I'll be sad if they die? Definitely. But I don't see how it helps the setting to make the assumption that they will. You are the one who controls all of that character's actions, and if you aren't invested enough in them to at least attempt to keep them alive... then you're right. They will die.
It sounds like you are expecting character death a lot more than you should though. My point, as part of this post and the ones before it, is that the DM shouldn't necessarily save a character via deus ex machina. But there also shouldn't really be characters dying all that often in the first place. Sometimes it happens, but the players need to be proactive about avoiding death, and can't just rely on the DM to save them whenever things get too hot.
Edit: Of course, to each their own. That is simply my personal opinion.
As a game unto itself, I can see the "character backstory must be ten words or less" idea being plausible or even enjoyable, as long as the whole group agrees that this should be the way of it. My philosophy: Backstory starts a character; adventures refine it.
If I write a backstory for a character and it takes hours, it doesn't save me from the impartiality of my GM's dice or the module/session adventure.
The whole my-way-or-the-highway thing? Not so cool with my group. We tend to rule by consensus, with the GM having final vote as needed.
I know some other gms in games like shadowrun or vampire that want truly detailed backstories. I prefer the approach of brevity, get the concept some notes and go from there. Their first day of adventuring in-game with the rolls and separated from the warm bosom of backstory, is a new step forward and is what now matters.
|
RPG Superstar 2014 Top 32
|
Darkwolf: Personally, it would lessen my engagement in the game. I would likely design a character that I cared little for, so that if they died, I wouldn't really care all that much. Why would I willingly engage my sympathies for a character who is to die easily? That being said, I prefer the acting aspect of RPGs heavily to the combat areas. I know that I am in the minority. But, every party needs at least one person like me, otherwise the table just sort of sits there in an awkward silence.I don't think you necessarily need to differentiate the roleplaying from the combat. I do enjoy combat, but my characters still have personality, and will respond as befits them in other scenarios.
As for specifically designing a character you don't like in case they do get killed... that just sounds like you're setting yourself up to not enjoy the game, and to let the character die if/when it becomes even a remote possibility.
I personally play characters I like, and I do become invested in them. Does that mean I'll be sad if they die? Definitely. But I don't see how it helps the setting to make the assumption that they will. You are the one who controls all of that character's actions, and if you aren't invested enough in them to at least attempt to keep them alive... then you're right. They will die.
It sounds like you are expecting character death a lot more than you should though. My point, as part of this post and the ones before it, is that the DM shouldn't necessarily save a character via deus ex machina. But there also shouldn't really be characters dying all that often in the first place. Sometimes it happens, but the players need to be proactive about avoiding death, and can't just rely on the DM to save them whenever things get too hot.
Edit: Of course, to each their own. That is simply my personal opinion.
Well, I am expecting PC death a lot from this particular GM's table, based on his posts here. I could be wrong, he could just be putting forward the internet tough guy persona...but he sounds like the type who *wants* to be overly deadly.
I do accept that PC death happens, especially if I do something stupid. I am a very cautious player and I try very hard to keep that from happening. If I do something stupid, I don't expect the GM to bend over backwards to stop it. However, if there was literally nothing else that could have been done - if the encounter was far too difficult for this party or the rolls were just bad - there is absolutely nothing wrong with the GM pulling a couple of punches for a few turns to give the party at least a couple of turns to reorganize. Say that the crit doesn't confirm (If you know that a particular character's AC is 18, ask them if 17 hits.) or do minimum damage for 1-2 turns. If the character dies anyway, at least be a bit sympathetic. That would go further than just about anything else - a lot of this is about attitude, and it sounds like this GM has a lot of it.
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.
If there was a good story for the twin brother, I'd have allowed it.
I admit to doing a twin sister thing once, but the characters were actually somewhat different in terms of build. The character who died died very quickly in a game where there was no raise dead, and I needed a new character right away mid-session and didn't have time to come up with a whole new story. I think it was the GM himself who suggested making my new character a sister of the old one.
Anything like this ever happen to you?
No.
I do encourage players providing me detailed backgrounds and that has never caused me problems.
PC death is not common in my games, however. If it did happen, I trust my players would accept it with grace (however frustrated they might be).
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I've been there. I've written 10 to 15 page backstories, just to have the character get critted by some random chump weasel on our way back to town to sell off loot. I've had very fun, very interesting characters die the very first session they are played.
Heck, I had a character get killed by another PC immediately after the first encounter. Nobody told me the guy had an immense hatred for Tieflings. I felt a little miffed, but oh well.
Writing backstories is an activity that is completely voluntary at our table. We've had lots of new players who have never written anything creatively since high school, so there are no rules requiring backstories. If the player is having trouble coming up with a short paragraph describing how they came to the adventure, the DM is always willing to assist just enough to get the game rolling and give them some ideas.
The times when I've written those semi-epic, 10+ page stories and had the character go belly-up in one session, that was all on me. I made the decision to write that much, not the DM. It's a dangerous world, and every time we sit down to play, it's a gamble as to whether everyone's characters will be alive by the end of the session. So, I knew the risks ahead of time. No regrets.
|
|
I give each and every character I play 100% dedication. I write their backstories, their concept and everything in between. Now I realize that a PC could go at any moment and I am fine with that. I don't feel like I need to name my character "Red Shirt # 2" because he could die at any moment. I don't have trouble coming up with a concept on the fly so this is not a big deal for me. If I die during a game then it just wasn't meant to be, not all character's are destined to reach their goals no matter how much you write it in their backstory. Now if your character makes it through then you can go back and say "Yes Peter was destined from birth to do X and now he's done it."
I haven't had any PC deaths of my own yet aside from one in a campaign where I myself wasn't optimized enough to survive, but my last DM actually decided that if I write a somewhat longer backstory for my character, he'd give some bonus EXP. Usually, I don't want my character to die, and while I would be a bit upset if one of my characters died, but I wouldn't cause a shitstorm unless it was something like the DM deliberately killing me with a "death effect no save" attack that somehow hits only me.
I don't know, I'd be pretty furious if I got killed by a teammate after the first combat, but to each their own.
It was a jerk move, from a famously jerk player. And I did raise an issue about it, but at the time I had a dozen other character concepts I was more than happy to roll up as well.
I had joined an on-going, year-long campaign in the middle of combat. The player who killed my character, was vehemently devoted to slaughtering demons in all forms, with extreme prejudice. After the initial combat was over, he walks up and asks my character about my origins(goat-like horns, hooved feet, red skin, etc). I hadn't given it much thought, and just admitted to being descended from demons.
WHACK! Greataxe to the forehead. But, this was a corner-case, and has only happened once in my 20+ years of gaming. All other PVP fights have had greater justification and in-game consequences.
Did he get kicked out?
Did he get kicked out?
Nope. It was a fairly neutral to evil party as is.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm not shocked that you're using dice, nor am I shocked that you are taking this approach. Disappointed? A bit. But not shocked. If you take the attitude that "Oh, I'm sorry, you died. Your hours these last few weeks have been for nothing, I'm not letting you use any of it ever again for all eternity because I rolled a 19 instead of an 18," then I can fully understand why your player reacted the way that they did. The ghouls got lucky, the player was unlucky and had severe, unintended and unwelcome consequences for it. Consequences that the player knew COULD arise, but didn't really want to. Fine. But now the ball is in your court - what do you do about it? Do you lose a player in order to keep your game "fair", or do you allow him to modify the character slightly and bring it back in? Can you at least see why he would be angry?
I can see why a character would be disappointed, but angry? No. If anger is what he feels, that's a player who needs to control himself.
But how about those hours that have been for nothing. Did you enjoy those hours? Did you have fun playing for those hours or, if all spent on backstory, writing your character's story? If so, it's not been for nothing. I am concerned that there's too much emphasis being put on the end goals and not the process of reaching them here. If the end goal of successfully completing the potential wrapped up in a flowery backstory is the only payoff, then there's a serious problem in someone's priorities.I'm not suggesting changing the campaign in any way. I'm suggesting *not* changing it and letting the player's new character at least borrow elements from his old one. Your attitude throughout this thread reads to me like something of a power trip - you didn't like the fact that he wrote so much unnecessary backstory (which, while annoying, wasn't hurting anybody else) and were completely unsympathetic when his work was ruined.
I don't think shallowsoul has implied that at all. Rather, he'd rather not submit to the player's pressure to make his voluntarily crafted, detailed backstory psychologically pay off when that player should have known that was a gamble in the first place.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Now, something I forgot to include above, that's kind of the flip-side to the story about my character getting killed so fast, is that I have played under DM's who, under there own volition have made exceptions and fudged a die or two to save a character of mine whom they did enjoy the backstory to, and wanted to use pieces of the story in upcoming games. Sometimes, even just to say that if I had chosen to play a new character, the old one may not have died, but surely gave up adventuring.
I rolled up a female gnome bard, who was sort of the fantasy-setting equivalent to Bjork, and was a lot of fun to play in the whole 2 sessions she lasted before being eaten by a huge black dragon.
The DM had thought on it between sessions, and felt bad about the character having died this way. He asked if I wanted to play her again, I declined, and so he then said was looking forward to more sessions with that character, but I had already moved on to a new one. After talking it out with me first, decided that she had not in fact died, but somehow survived making her way through the digestive tract of the dragon and came out the other end alive. She went on to write an inspired concept performance based on the experience. That made me pretty happy.
