Death- should it be taxed?

[Lincoln Hills]

I've always wanted to sit at Bruce Cordell's table, despite the considerable risk that I would be unable to sleep for two or three nights afterward.

[thejeff]

Kain Darkwind wrote:

Tholomyes wrote:

And this is one of the reasons I would never want to play in any game that Gygax ran, if I ever had been given the opportunity. I respect the fact that he essentially birthed the whole hobby with Arneson, but from all that I've read of his gaming philosophy, I'd take the worst DM I've ever had over him, any day.

Wow. Redonkulous. It would be like passing up a one-on-one game of hoops with Michael Jordan. Sure, you are almost guaranteed to lose, but the experience alone would make it worthwhile.

Gary might have been ruthless with characters, but I've played with DMs who had my 1st level 12 Str fighter throwing an entire crowd around with a DC 3 Str check, who giggled over the thought of orc boobs and who according to the sergeant on CQ who he annoyed with his stories, was actually just plotting to make us all watch his DMPC be amazing and follow her around.

That's boring. Not only would letting Gary (or Dave or Ed or Monte or Skip or Rob) run a game be awesome just for the experience, but I bet it would be exciting.

The best DM I ever had probably chewed through ten-fifteen level 1-3 characters before we got our best campaign underway. Saying you wouldn't game with Gary because you don't like dying boggles my mind.

So because you like a different style of game than someone else they're "redonkulous"?

Seriously, I might have played the game if given the chance, just for the geek cred and just to see if it was as bad as rumour makes it, but I really doubt I'd come back for a second one.

Mind you, I think the other GM you describe would be worse, but that's pretty faint praise.

Different people like different things about the game. That's not a bad thing. It's part of the strength of the hobby. It's so flexible.

[Tholomyes]

thejeff wrote:

Kain Darkwind wrote:

Tholomyes wrote:

And this is one of the reasons I would never want to play in any game that Gygax ran, if I ever had been given the opportunity. I respect the fact that he essentially birthed the whole hobby with Arneson, but from all that I've read of his gaming philosophy, I'd take the worst DM I've ever had over him, any day.

Wow. Redonkulous. It would be like passing up a one-on-one game of hoops with Michael Jordan. Sure, you are almost guaranteed to lose, but the experience alone would make it worthwhile.

Gary might have been ruthless with characters, but I've played with DMs who had my 1st level 12 Str fighter throwing an entire crowd around with a DC 3 Str check, who giggled over the thought of orc boobs and who according to the sergeant on CQ who he annoyed with his stories, was actually just plotting to make us all watch his DMPC be amazing and follow her around.

That's boring. Not only would letting Gary (or Dave or Ed or Monte or Skip or Rob) run a game be awesome just for the experience, but I bet it would be exciting.

The best DM I ever had probably chewed through ten-fifteen level 1-3 characters before we got our best campaign underway. Saying you wouldn't game with Gary because you don't like dying boggles my mind.

So because you like a different style of game than someone else they're "redonkulous"?

Seriously, I might have played the game if given the chance, just for the geek cred and just to see if it was as bad as rumour makes it, but I really doubt I'd come back for a second one.

Mind you, I think the other GM you describe would be worse, but that's pretty faint praise.

Different people like different things about the game. That's not a bad thing. It's part of the strength of the hobby. It's so flexible.

This is essentially it. It's not that I don't like dying, but I prefer a different philosophy of gaming, and high lethality is only one part of that philosophy that I don't like. And yeah that was a bit of an exaggeration (to be honest, the worst DM I had, had just the same problems, plus he wasn't as good a DM, absent any philosophical differences) but my point was more, his philosophy clashes so much with mine, I don't care how good a DM or how legendary the experience would be, I wouldn't enjoy myself.

[Morgen]

Whoever Said wrote:

We grew up playing video games where you die, hit Continue, and keep playing.

Just as an aside to whoever said this, I grew up playing video games where if you died you were dead. Out a quarter or had to start from the beginning, and usually if there were continues they were limited in nature and/or you had to earn them somehow.

In our games people die, all the time. It happens, you roll up a new character or try to shill out the cost to cast a spell with an expensive material component. Without some kind of cost you radically toss off the whole rational of why everyone isn't just raised from the dead if they die in an accident or war. Heck, whole legions of clerics would be farmed by warmongering generals to keep the troops into the fray. That is terrifying.

Effectively you make death from not death effects/old age for everyone trivial if all there needs to be is some mid level spell casters in the world.

[Blueluck]

Morgen wrote:

Whoever Said wrote:

We grew up playing video games where you die, hit Continue, and keep playing.

Just as an aside to whoever said this, I grew up playing video games where if you died you were dead. Out a quarter or had to start from the beginning, and usually if there were continues they were limited in nature and/or you had to earn them somehow.

Yeah, me too. I started out in arcades where the "death tax" was paid in quarters:)

>>>------------->

A number of years ago I had the opportunity to play D&D with Gary Gygax at a convention. After sitting down at the table in my reserved slot and turning in characters, I gave up my seat to a little boy who was on the wait list and was clearly more starstruck than I, but I did stick around to watch them play.

From first hand experience I can tell you that even the dreaded Gary Gygax, who wrote Tomb of Horrors with the express purpose of killing off characters, adapted his GMing style and mortality rate to fit his players. Much of Mr. Gygax's reputation as a killer GM comes from his interactions at conventions with players who showed up with "super characters" intending to break his game (Hence tomb of Horrors). Presented with an excited 10 year old, he was pretty much a kindly old man who wanted everyone to have a good time.

If we're going to refer to the oldest of old-school GMs as a data point, we should do so with accuracy. If Gary Gygax can ask for people's hit point totals before announcing the damage from a fireball (an obvious attempt to avoid killing the lower level characters too early in the session) then I don't think we're perverting his game when we do the same.

P.S. Back in my day! Get off my lawn! Kids these days! Harrumph!

[TOZ]

*hands Blueluck a cane*

[BillyGoat]

For those who have set non-iron-man-style video games death tax as a "trivial" reload...

Unless you save obsessively, that's not trivial. That's the loss of all the loot you garnered since you last saved, all the story progress, everything. That's a heavier death tax than a mid-level PC having to join the game at APL-1, or being raised for 5000 gp + 2 negative levels.

Granted, it depends on the frequency with which you save (for non-checkpoint games). But, all that means is you change how you pay the death tax. If you obsessively save every five minutes (after every fight, whatever), that's 10 to 30 seconds (more if your computer is older) that you aren't playing. Every five minutes. It adds up to a lot of "downtime".

Think of it as death insurance. Either way, you're paying for character death, in all but the most forgiving of video games.

Blueluck wrote:

BillyGoat wrote:

<snip>... one of the players decided their careless character would turn the key to wake the clockwork soldier. And then his friend the rogue died with a halberd through the chest.... <snip>

(emphasis added)

I'm one of those who posted that I don't agree with random deaths. But I don't consider that death to be random, trivial, or dramatically inappropriate at all. That death is, in fact, exactly the kind I like!

I was there, trust me, this was random.

They had little reason to be there (random decision to go that way). The guardian picked its targets based purely on who was closest to the door it was guarding. As a result, the flanking rogue became the target. The attack roll's random number generator (a d20) then proceeded to produce two values that indicated hits. The total damage dealt on the two sets of damage random number generators happened to equal the rogues total HP+Constitution Score+some more (it was overkill, but I don't remember just by how much).

Blueluck wrote:

• The deadly situation occurred because the PCs made a choice to enter an unnecessary area. (Another common example is starting a fight with a powerful enemy who's willing to talk.)

This bullet makes it hard to think of what you would consider a random death.

Would a death in a fight with bandits from a random encounter table, where the PCs saw them from a distance, and decided to fight anyways, count?

Not trying to put words in your mouth, just trying to find the line between PC choice & random.

Blueluck wrote:

• The death was a result of roleplaying on the part of a player. (A careless character pushed the big, red, tempting "do not push" button.)

Fair enough on that point, but then again, a barbarian dying to an attack from a random encounter because he roleplays his refusal to ever retreat would then cross out of random.

Assuming the group roleplays at all, this seems to eliminate all random death, other than GM fiat. So what and where is the line?

Blueluck wrote:

• The party worked to haul the body home. (Death is more dramatic when it makes you change your
  
• The death caused a change in at least one character. (In this case, the character who caused the death.)

While this is my favorite part of the whole story, I can't call this something that makes the death "non-random". Its the events leading to the death that are random, not the follow-up.

If we judge by the follow-up to a death whether or not it was random, then we can never know what is or isn't random until after the fact. I had no idea they'd carry her back. I assumed a simple cairn & divvying of her worldly possessions. Which half the "good" aligned members actually argued in favor of.

And I'm all for fun play, if my group by-and-large didn't have fun playing with the risks I present, I'd ditch "death taxes" in a heartbeat. But, as it stands, they find the risk of temporary frustration to make death a more real threat, worthy of avoiding. We've played in games with little to no death tax (or no character attachment), and they rapidly degenerated into wacky hijinks.

Granted, my asking players to bring new characters in at 90% average party XP is offset rather significantly by the fact that I hand out individual XP, including bonus XP for contributions to the game in the form of good ideas/plans, amazing narrative descriptions, in-game jokes that get the table laughing, and building ties between your character and the world they're in.

edit to correct a grammar thing.

[Joanna Swiftblade]

I take away EXP, depending on what was used, instead of leaving the PC's with negative levels (since a restoration spell can get rid of them with little bother). I take about 50% of that levels EXP away for each negative level the spell bestows, encouraging pooling for a better Ress spell. If the PC decides to remake, they come back one level lower anyway.

[Kain Darkwind]

Redonkulous is the idea that you would pass up a chance to game with Gygax.

"I would never want to play in any game that Gygax ran"

It has nothing to do with badwrongfun, and everything to do with passing up a chance to meet the President/Queen because the lawn needs mowing.

So yeah. Someone posts a statement of that sort of absolute nature about Gygax, and I dub it redonkulous.

[PathlessBeth]

Marthkus wrote:

He'll always have that XP gap.

3.5 didn't have that. The chart was more complicated, but it was also self correcting. Lower level PC got MORE xp than higher level PCs not just relatively more.

No, PF corrects that by making xp exponential. The "gap" in xp between the player with the most and the player with the least will quickly become irrelevant.

Quote:

Why "making death counts" is always associate with "bothering to hell the players who just died"?

Generally speaking, having to start with a new char means you lose all past connection, all friendship you builded during your adventures, and all the fame and notability you got from all the accomplishment you had.
And even more importantly, you get secluded during those recurring in character moments of "guys, do you remember when we did that..."

If in your games there is nothing like that, but only door smashing, then i question wether there is really the need of making death relevant.

Why is "making death count" always interpreted as "you must make a new character"? The 5000 gp cost an level loss from raise dead does make death count. But it doesn't destroy characterization: It makes you fear death, but you can still come back. Then your character gains renown as someone who is so powerful that they could overcome death. If the DM is willing to put some more work into the game (not an option for very busy DMs, but it can work for some), then have the rest of the party adventure to the underworld to find their dead comrade--BUT make sure to write the adventure so that the dead PC still has to do a lot from their end of things. Unfortunately, this incurs all the normal challenges of writing an adventure for a separated party, but it is do-able for a sufficiently skilled DM.

This is NOT a choice between one hyper extreme of making the player with the dead character start over at level one with the rest of the party keeping their loot (and the level one PC probably continuing to die) and the other hyper extreme of having no consequence of death whatsoever.

Joanna Swiftblade wrote:

I take away EXP, depending on what was used, instead of leaving the PC's with negative levels (since a restoration spell can get rid of them with little bother). I take about 50% of that levels EXP away for each negative level the spell bestows, encouraging pooling for a better Ress spell. If the PC decides to remake, they come back one level lower anyway.

I actually prefer a gold cost to an XP cost, due to the fact that a player death is frequently the fault of a different player in the group. A gold cost is easier to pool than an xp cost. I'm fine with either, though.

[Zhayne]

Kain Darkwind wrote:

It has nothing to do with badwrongfun, and everything to do with passing up a chance to meet the President/Queen because the lawn needs mowing.

Many people have actually done that (perhaps not because the lawn needed mowing, but because the disapproved of the President/Queen).

[Umbranus]

Kain Darkwind wrote:

Redonkulous is the idea that you would pass up a chance to game with Gygax.

"I would never want to play in any game that Gygax ran"

It has nothing to do with badwrongfun, and everything to do with passing up a chance to meet the President/Queen because the lawn needs mowing.

So yeah. Someone posts a statement of that sort of absolute nature about Gygax, and I dub it redonkulous.

I would not only pass up a chance to do a RPG session with Gygax, I would pass up a chance to play basketball with Air Jordan, a game of snooker with Ronnie O'Sullivan, a fishing trip with Jeremy Wade and lots of other chances.

I'd pass up a chance to meet with any president/King/Queen in the world, too. I just don't care much about famous people.

That Gygax had a gaming style with which I don't agree doesn't help.

[DetectiveKatana]

In my game I have a very light death tax. Replacement Characters come in at the same XP as everyone in the party (Since XP gain is linear) but they come in at NPC wealth. This is because A. I don't want death to be completely cheap, I want to encourage careful play, and B. I expect the players will not only take a significant portion of the dead PCs adventuring gear, but any wealth they collect will realistically be split 3 ways instead of four so it throws the wealth all out of whack.

Of course this is in a group that already doesn't split all the wealth evenly (Hey, if we chip in toward the fighter's new sword or the mage's new wand we can totally get more mileage out of our gold!) and are pretty unselfish as a group. Also it's a guideline, not a hard rule. I make exceptions for things like heroic sacrifices, etc.

I think death should come with some consequence, so that people are encouraged to play careful. But I don't think a death tax is necessary and it can easily be an idea that gets out of hand.

[buddahcjcc]

Lincoln Hills wrote:

I've only had a few PC deaths - you can chalk that up to a permissive GM if you like

Would a passive GM be when he hits the barbarian for 66 damage at one hit and when I rolled the fort save for death for massive damage and got a 1, he said "I didnt say make a fort save so youre not dead"?

[Blueluck]

buddahcjcc wrote:

Lincoln Hills wrote:

I've only had a few PC deaths - you can chalk that up to a permissive GM if you like

Would a passive GM be when he hits the barbarian for 66 damage at one hit and when I rolled the fort save for death for massive damage and got a 1, he said "I didnt say make a fort save so youre not dead"?

"Passive" and "permissive" are very different.

Considering the massive damage rules are optional, I'd say an easy GM wouldn't use them.

[Gilfalas]

Umbranus wrote:

That Gygax had a gaming style with which I don't agree doesn't help.

Sorry but I have to chime in here: Exactly how do you know that? Did you ever game with Mr. Gygax? Did you ever meet him? You sure speak as if your authoratatively informed about his games and play styles.

I can say from personal experience that the vast majority of internet stories pegging his games as 'killer' are bull$hit.

The game as a whole was more dangerous when originally written and as such it had a higher mortality rate. There were far, FAR fewer hit points on characters, Armor Classes had an effective cap in the game equal to about 30 AC in the current system and it was near impossible for characters to get that high without a bevy of the best magic in the game.

But it was never my experience in the times I played with Mr. Gygax or his boys or the Nystul boys that they ran killer games. The games were challenging, had some of the best puzzles I have ever run into and were full of wonderful story telling and fascinating character personalities.

This was back in the early 80's so yes it has been a while but it has really been annoying me how 'Gygax' or 'Gygaxian' is suddenly being coined as an insult in many posts on this forum.

To me it shows a distinct lack of respect and actual knowledge for one of the most creatively influental men in the last 60 years. D&D and RPG's are not as huge as say video games or movies but I dare you to find any video game or movie maker today who has not in some way been impacted by Mr. Gygax and Arneson's little game experiment.

Sorry had to get that off my chest.

Edit: As for the infamous 'Tomb of Horrors' module, it was not originally written as an adventure module for home games. It was made as a convention adventure to be played in multi level competition. The winner of a round was the player who's character either survived the entire time of the event or died last. The winner of the event would be the one who got the farthest in the module or survive and earned the most XP. It was written especially deadly for that reason. It was not indicative of the standard games he ran.

They did eventually publish it because it became infamous in game community for it's lethality (which was out of the ordinary) and they had a pretty big demand for it.

[Rynjin]

I liked death to be fairly infrequent and pretty easy to recover from in my games.

If they want to bring in a new character, cool. Same level as the rest of he party, full WBL if the rest of the party is at or above that line, a bit lower if not.

In addition to Raise Dead I usually have a few other options that may bypass the cost or caster level requirement (mostly for new PCs) which may impart other penalties both cosmetic and mechanical, either temporary or permanent. Carrion Crown I let the party have access to some vials that made Chynickal Zombies, though if they'd been used they wouldn't have gotten all the benefits, Essentially if someone had died they could have come back with an immunity to death effects and no negative levels, but a dependence on the substance (it had a weekly dosage that if not taken would result in incurable Int damage until when it hits 0 the guy becomes a mindless undead) and standard Undead weaknesses.

I find that options like that makes death both "trivial" in its impact on the time taken from actual game time (which I like to maximize) and significant in its long term effects on a character.

Standard Raise Dead is still available, of course, but I find people usually enjoy rolling on the roulette wheel of resurrections more. Part of why I make Reincarnate common in my games as well.

TriOmegaZero wrote:

I prefer thematic death. If I can get a home group off the group again I'll consider adding the Death Flag rule if my players will go for it.

Like I said in the other thread a few days back, you get that Way of the Wicked game going and I'll jump all over it. =)

[Blueluck]

Gilfalas wrote:

Umbranus wrote:

That Gygax had a gaming style with which I don't agree doesn't help.

I can say from personal experience that the vast majority of internet stories pegging his games as 'killer' are bull$hit...

A few days ago I posted a similar comment about Mr. Gygax's reputation, and it sounds like you have even more experience with him than I do.

People who never played old-school D&D don't realize that before the days of PFS and RPGA, many players would simply bring their home-game characters to conventions and expect to play them in someone's D&D game. This is before the days of WBL guidelines, point-buy ability scores, multiclass balance, and internet FAQs, so all sorts of crazy overpowered characters would show up. The players wielding the most powerful characters would frequently be the most competitive types, and they were there to beat the GM's game. Mr. Gygax responded to these players in kind, by creating difficult and unforgiving adventures just for them, and they rose to the challenge.

I've personally been at the table when Mr. Gygax was running a non-competitive game and asked for everyone's HP totals before declaring the damage from a fireball trap - a blatant ploy to avoid killing anyone's character.

>>>------------->

It's important to keep your audience and goals in mind.

• When I run a game to teach a bunch of 6th grader's how to play, nobody dies. You don't learn much about the game while your character is dead, and it doesn't make you want to play a second time.
  
• When I run a game for my friends, death is rare. A lot of time and effort goes into those characters, and we can't tell a very engaging story if the cast keeps dying and being replaced.
  
• When I run a game at a convention, deaths don't happen until the final battle, and are always glorious or humorous. You drove to another city, got a hotel, paid an entrance fee, and signed up to spend 4 hours of your weekend playing my game. I want you to get your time and money's worth.
  
• When I run a game for power-gamers who are trying to "beat" the GM, I'm pretty harsh. They haven't proven anything to themselves if I'm a pushover, and they're not pulling any punches against me either.

[Tels]

In my group, I'm the 'killer GM' so to speak in that I have more kills than the other GMs when it comes to Pathfinder (one of the GMs has been playing TTRPG for 30 years).

What we do is pretty simple, either raise them (which isn't too hard, just costly and usually comes with a quest or favor), or if they want to stay dead, they can bring in a new PC at the lowest level of the group. They get their WBL gold, and I approve of all items first before coming into the game.

We've never had any issues. In fact, it sometimes works out for the better because of some bad level up choices or incompatible loot/gear means the new character might be better functioning than the old.

[buddahcjcc]

Our GM's death rule is:

2. When dying your first death will result in a new character with the same level, after that every death will result in your character losing one permanent level.

The problem I see with this is eventually (with enough deaths) we're gonna stop being able to do what we need to do cause it's all higher level than we are unless we do some level grinding before we go try to attack it again (mind you we're on slow advancement track so thats really not an option)

[Atarlost]

The fundamental problem with death taxes is that they produce a positive feedback loop. You die, get taxes, and then are weaker than you were before and are even more likely to die. Long term problems like wealth loss need to have no feedback or negative feedback for the game to remain indefinitely playable for the imperfect. The game has a 20 level limit so a little bit of positive feedback won't ruin the game for players who almost never die, but it's never good.

[Umbranus]

Gilfalas wrote:

Umbranus wrote:

That Gygax had a gaming style with which I don't agree doesn't help.

I can say from personal experience that the vast majority of internet stories pegging his games as 'killer' are bull$hit.

Let me rephrase what I have said to:

That Gygax was reputed to have a gaming style with which I don't agree doesn't help.

I'm glad he invented this kind of game but that's all. I never wanted to insult him. All I wanted say was that who ever called the possibility to decline a chance to game with Gygax rediculous (or redoncoulus) was wrong.

Last weekend I got to know sergej ukolov, the world HMB (historic medieval battle) champion and while it's nice to have met him and it gives me something more to tell others about when talking about the weekend it will not change my life or something. And it would have been similar with gygax I guess.

Some of the fighters saw it as a great honor to meet sergej in battle during the turnament, others just dreaded it, knowing that he was far above them in his sword skills.