|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Someone on the boards found it funny when I discussed characters being heavily involved in the story and advicating arbitrary death at the same time. Where is the problem with this? Why can't I spend a lot of time on my character, have him heavily involved with the story and at the same time, accept that things happen and characters die by that lone trap or that lucky hit from a monster?
I do this with each of my characters and I don't see why it would be funny.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
No one is playing "wrong".
Blasphemy.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Someone on the boards found it funny when I discussed characters being heavily involved in the story and advicating arbitrary death at the same time. Where is the problem with this? Why can't I spend a lot of time on my character, have him heavily involved with the story and at the same time, accept that things happen and characters die by that lone trap or that lucky hit from a monster?
I do this with each of my characters and I don't see why it would be funny.
Because, I daresay for most people, the more heavily invested they are in their character the more painful it is to have that character die, because it feels like they are losing that investment. People typically don't like to go through painful experiences if they don't have to, so people tend to not like having their character die, especially when the circumstances make it feel as though the death was unnecessary or meaningless.
This isn't a difficult concept.
|
|
Someone on the boards found it funny when I discussed characters being heavily involved in the story and advicating arbitrary death at the same time. Where is the problem with this? Why can't I spend a lot of time on my character, have him heavily involved with the story and at the same time, accept that things happen and characters die by that lone trap or that lucky hit from a monster?
I do this with each of my characters and I don't see why it would be funny.
Because, I daresay for most people, the more heavily invested they are in their character the more painful it is to have that character die, because it feels like they are losing that investment. People typically don't like to go through painful experiences if they don't have to, so people tend to not like having their character die, especially when the circumstances make it feel as though the death was unnecessary or meaningless.
This isn't a difficult concept.
I could understand if a concept only entered one's brain very rarely and it was an act of god to come up with another but most people are able to come up with concepts.
I just accept the rules of the game and how crap can happen.
An analogy I saw in another thread was if the same lethality applied to settings. As a DM, would you be okay if a series of unlucky dice rolls meant you would lose your setting? All the cool ideas you had for the setting have to be thrown away and you have to make a new setting from scratch.
Define 'arbitrary death' for clarities sake?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
An analogy I saw in another thread was if the same lethality applied to settings. As a DM, would you be okay if a series of unlucky dice rolls meant you would lose your setting? All the cool ideas you had for the setting have to be thrown away and you have to make a new setting from scratch.
And with this, we roll back around to the argument from the other thread(s) that the amount of time/energy/thought invested is equal or equivalent in any way, shape or form.
The bottom line is some people are more invested in their characters than others. Some people would not care for ANY death, regardless of if it is arbitrary or not. Which is fine, there are many ways to play and many ways to care about your characters.
As Scott Betts said above, if the circumstances seem meaningless or inconsequential, this makes it worse. I've played online with people that wanted total editorial control over everything that happened to their character; I find that approach to be over the top. If I cannot throw a drink on you without you having to micromanage what might be an inconsequential encounter, I'm betting that things that cause harm are going to definitely be a trial, be it traps, combat, getting captured, or whatever.
That said, hire a rogue to scout ahead if you are worried about traps!
edited to add: Keep in mind what you believe is inconsequential may not be. What you believe to be death may be just the beginning of an exciting arc. Don't go into everything negative! Maybe something spawns out of this!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So if I say "rocks fall, Shallowsoul dies" then its okay and he accepts it? Even if he spent three weeks working on the character?
Anyways, opinions on whats right change from person to person. Best to present yours on a session 0 that way there aren't any hurt feelings or surprises. Sure one guy might be fine with rocks falling from the sky and murdering 'Joseph the 8 page backstory', but I know I prefer my characters not to die, and that that comes off as ridiculously boring to me.
|
|
So if I say "rocks fall, Shallowsoul dies" then its okay and he accepts it? Even if he spent three weeks working on the character?
Anyways, opinions on whats right change from person to person. Best to present yours on a session 0 that way there aren't any hurt feelings or surprises. Sure one guy might be fine with rocks falling from the sky and murdering 'Joseph the 8 page backstory', but I know I prefer my characters not to die, and that that comes off as ridiculously boring to me.
Thats not arbitrary death by the rules.
If I set off a trap and failed my save then yes I accept it.
So if I say "rocks fall, Shallowsoul dies" then its okay and he accepts it? Even if he spent three weeks working on the character?
Anyways, opinions on whats right change from person to person. Best to present yours on a session 0 that way there aren't any hurt feelings or surprises. Sure one guy might be fine with rocks falling from the sky and murdering 'Joseph the 8 page backstory', but I know I prefer my characters not to die, and that that comes off as ridiculously boring to me.
I don't know if shallowsoul's talking about "rocks fall" - I'm reading his point as being a fair death ("Ooh, that's a crit for the scythe-wielding ogre... Did you say you had 14 hp left..?") that isn't promoting the plot, but that just happens 'cause, you know, mortal combat sometimes results in a PC's death.
For what it's worth, shallowsoul, I agree with you (whaaa?!?) that it's a legit playstyle, and in fact it's probably the one that I prefer.
Yeah, that feels weird...
It's happened to me. Life goes on. I don't really want to play in a game where my character doesn't run the risk of dying. And I always like making characters with depth.
|
|
So if I say "rocks fall, Shallowsoul dies" then its okay and he accepts it? Even if he spent three weeks working on the character?
Anyways, opinions on whats right change from person to person. Best to present yours on a session 0 that way there aren't any hurt feelings or surprises. Sure one guy might be fine with rocks falling from the sky and murdering 'Joseph the 8 page backstory', but I know I prefer my characters not to die, and that that comes off as ridiculously boring to me.
I don't know if shallowsoul's talking about "rocks fall" - I'm reading his point as being a fair death ("Ooh, that's a crit for the scythe-wielding ogre... Did you say you had 14 hp left..?") that isn't promoting the plot, but that just happens 'cause, you know, mortal combat sometimes results in a PC's death.
For what it's worth, shallowsoul, I agree with you (whaaa?!?) that it's a legit playstyle, and in fact it's probably the one that I prefer.
Yeah, that feels weird...
It's happened to me. Life goes on. I don't really want to play in a game where my character doesn't run the risk of dying. And I always like making characters with depth.
Agreed.
And with this, we roll back around to the argument from the other thread(s) that the amount of time/energy/thought invested is equal or equivalent in any way, shape or form.
So you are saying that as a DM, you wouldn't be okay with a series of unlucky dice rolls meaning the death of your setting?
If so, and if it's just a matter of how much time and energy was put into the setting, then this would imply that the more time and effort players put into their characters, the worse it is to kill them off arbitrarily. Is there a point at which someone has put enough work into their character that it crosses the line and it's now bad to randomly kill off their character? What about the other side of the line, with DMs? If a DM doesn't put enough work into crafting a setting, is it okay to kill off their setting?
I've played online with people that wanted total editorial control over everything that happened to their character;
Where did this come from? I don't think not wanting the character you spent a lot of time and effort creating and fitting into the setting, campaign, and party to die in stupid and inconsequential ways is the same as wanting complete control over what happens to your character. In particular, if your character dies then (unless resurrection magic is available), you don't get to play that character any more. Just taking damage or whatever doesn't keep you from playing the character.
|
|
And with this, we roll back around to the argument from the other thread(s) that the amount of time/energy/thought invested is equal or equivalent in any way, shape or form.So you are saying that as a DM, you wouldn't be okay with a series of unlucky dice rolls meaning the death of your setting?
If so, and if it's just a matter of how much time and energy was put into the setting, then this would imply that the more time and effort players put into their characters, the worse it is to kill them off arbitrarily. Is there a point at which someone has put enough work into their character that it crosses the line and it's now bad to randomly kill off their character? What about the other side of the line, with DMs? If a DM doesn't put enough work into crafting a setting, is it okay to kill off their setting?
I've played online with people that wanted total editorial control over everything that happened to their character;Where did this come from? I don't think not wanting the character you spent a lot of time and effort creating and fitting into the setting, campaign, and party to die in stupid and inconsequential ways is the same as wanting complete control over what happens to your character. In particular, if your character dies then (unless resurrection magic is available), you don't get to play that character any more. Just taking damage or whatever doesn't keep you from playing the character.
The death of the setting by dice rolls?
What are you on about?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't think anyone is arguing that they want "rocks fall, you die", that's a ridiculous characterization of the position. I am confident in saying that shadowsoul uses "arbitrary death" as a stand in phrase for "lucky crit with a greataxe" or "natural 1 rolled against a disintegrate trap" and so on. I could be wrong and he could mean "rocks fall, you die" but I would put very long odds on that being correct.
When I DM my chat game we are playing a sandbox. I set up the world, set all kinds of pieces into motion and rumors (false and true) out there then wait and see what the PCs pick up and run with. I also roll everything in the open, have rumors and monster locations that would lead to fights a level 1 party would have 0 chance of surviving, and am running a world where there is no easy access to resurrection. If the PCs triumph it is their own luck and skill doing it, I'm not fudging for them, and if they fail it is their own bad luck or mistakes, I'm not fudging for the NPCs either.
They have all put work into their PCs, with good backstories, plans for the present and future, etc but they are still level 1 characters and the world is a dangerous place. If they hear rumors that a dozen caravans have gone missing in the woods near X town, they go there and fail to spot an ambush, and a bandit rolls a lucky crit with a bow them's the breaks. By the same token if I put lots of work into an enemy NPC, his plans and plots and desires, and one of the PCs crit him or he tanks a save that's the way it goes.
In the end though it's all down to preference. You aren't doing it wrong if you never want a PC to ever die (though in my opinion that would be fantastically boring) and you aren't doing it wrong if you like there to be danger. It isn't an either/or thing, you can put loads of effort into making a PC and want the game to be deadly (see every game of Call of Cthulhu for a game that makes the deadliest of Pathfinder DMs look coddling) or you could spend 3 seconds making Bob the fighter or Gandolfo the wizard and be completely against him facing a chance of death.
Thats not arbitrary death by the rules.
If I set off a trap and failed my save then yes I accept it.
Ahh, well if it has to be an absolutely fair death then yes, that's a completely different matter. Saying arbitrary death infers that its on a whim, which rocks falling may just happen to be.
I don't know if shallowsoul's talking about "rocks fall" - I'm reading his point as being a fair death ("Ooh, that's a crit for the scythe-wielding ogre... Did you say you had 14 hp left..?") that isn't promoting the plot, but that just happens 'cause, you know, mortal combat sometimes results in a PC's death.
Ahh, well for that very reason I avoid x3/x4 criticals on my bad guys personally. I think combat should be exciting and I don't think the insta-gib effect of scythe criticals are very exciting(at least not when used on your PCs, mooks I expect to die and often). As I said, I think its boring and anti-dramatic. As I said, different playstyles.
|
|
So if I say "rocks fall, Shallowsoul dies" then its okay and he accepts it? Even if he spent three weeks working on the character?
Anyways, opinions on whats right change from person to person. Best to present yours on a session 0 that way there aren't any hurt feelings or surprises. Sure one guy might be fine with rocks falling from the sky and murdering 'Joseph the 8 page backstory', but I know I prefer my characters not to die, and that that comes off as ridiculously boring to me.
I prefer my characters to live as well but I do know that thw default game brings death.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
And with this, we roll back around to the argument from the other thread(s) that the amount of time/energy/thought invested is equal or equivalent in any way, shape or form.So you are saying that as a DM, you wouldn't be okay with a series of unlucky dice rolls meaning the death of your setting?
If so, and if it's just a matter of how much time and energy was put into the setting, then this would imply that the more time and effort players put into their characters, the worse it is to kill them off arbitrarily. Is there a point at which someone has put enough work into their character that it crosses the line and it's now bad to randomly kill off their character? What about the other side of the line, with DMs? If a DM doesn't put enough work into crafting a setting, is it okay to kill off their setting?
Settings and characters simply don't equate in this way. A character is made with the understanding that they will be engaging in mortal combat. That's kinda the point.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And with this, we roll back around to the argument from the other thread(s) that the amount of time/energy/thought invested is equal or equivalent in any way, shape or form.So you are saying that as a DM, you wouldn't be okay with a series of unlucky dice rolls meaning the death of your setting?
If so, and if it's just a matter of how much time and energy was put into the setting, then this would imply that the more time and effort players put into their characters, the worse it is to kill them off arbitrarily. Is there a point at which someone has put enough work into their character that it crosses the line and it's now bad to randomly kill off their character? What about the other side of the line, with DMs? If a DM doesn't put enough work into crafting a setting, is it okay to kill off their setting?
I've played online with people that wanted total editorial control over everything that happened to their character;Where did this come from? I don't think not wanting the character you spent a lot of time and effort creating and fitting into the setting, campaign, and party to die in stupid and inconsequential ways is the same as wanting complete control over what happens to your character. In particular, if your character dies then (unless resurrection magic is available), you don't get to play that character any more. Just taking damage or whatever doesn't keep you from playing the character.
I'm saying that there isn't a scenario where the setting gets aced by some unlucky die rolls, so that point is fairly meaningless.
I'm saying that a number of posters tend to try to equate the work done on a character as the same as the work done on a setting, which is usually not the case unless you are a very prolific writer and have spent years on your back story.
As for the editorial comment, that is what is called an example of an extreme. Yes, if you die you do not get to play that character any more unless something changes that storywise.
If there isn't any sense of risk for the reward, then what is the point? If you are assured that you won't die, why bother having an armour class or hit points? Just have the GM describe the wounds and move on, get healed, continue the story.
Finally, is it less random to kill a character off by a toss of the dice, a lucky critical, a missed save, a botched check that results in a fall and so forth? Are they more or less stupid. I get it, you do not like traps. But what you want is editorial control, that the GM doesn't get to do things that are "stupid" that kill you off. Which goes back to the above example that you were curious about.
I prefer my characters to live as well but I do know that thw default game brings death.
It does! But we all play differently. Like I want to use this Template I made to make death a little more interesting when I can, and I'm not a fan of killing PCs.
Settings and characters simply don't equate in this way. A character is made with the understanding that they will be engaging in mortal combat. That's kinda the point.
It is, but the way you handle death and how often varies from game to game. Some GMs never ever want to kill a PC and feel awful if they do, and others just want to do a sandbox where you only die if you do something exceptionally dangerous, and others just play an AP as written and if you die you die. Expectations vary greatly. Obviously you always enter in a life or death situation, but there's different expectations on how it can turn out. There's also something about keeping the fear of death without killing, but that's another topic I think.
On the "dice roll ends a setting" track, while that's an unequal association (the entire setting is greater than any single individual in it and takes far more work to put together, and if you disagree with that we'll just agree to disagree) I am on board with the idea of luck on the PCs end destroying an NPC or plot thread before I would like it to happen. I could want an enemy NPC to become a recurring villain, or have a plot planned around an underling I want to slip away during a battle, only to have a bad save or lucky crit or just savvy PC action prevent it from happening. I won't fudge rolls, add hp, or invent reasons for the NPC to survive "oh, yeah, forgot to mention he had just happened to have X so he survives and escapes".
Conflict involves risk, and friction/luck plays a part in combat, for both sides. I can make sure to play an NPC who wants to risk little fully (setting up contingencies, making purchases geared around helping them survive, etc), and do what I can with their powers to account for ways they might want to escape, but if things go wrong they go wrong. If you play a different style, and the players are on board with it, that's awesome if it works. But just as my style is not a "one true way" to play, neither is yours.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The death of the setting by dice rolls?
What are you on about?
Read my previous post.
Settings and characters simply don't equate in this way. A character is made with the understanding that they will be engaging in mortal combat. That's kinda the point.
You too.
I'm saying that there isn't a scenario where the setting gets aced by some unlucky die rolls, so that point is fairly meaningless.
Yeah, I'm not really following this argument. It doesn't really make a lot of sense to talk about killing off a setting with die rolls.
It's a hypothetical situation. Obviously such a scenario doesn't really exist (although BillyGoat's mention of TPKs is apropos). The question is whether you'd be okay with it if it did exist.
(see every game of Call of Cthulhu for a game that makes the deadliest of Pathfinder DMs look coddling)
Interesting you should bring up Call of Cthulhu. Here's what my copy of Chaosium's The Keeper's Companion has to say about how the Keeper should handle PC death:
The first [rule] is, "Thou shalt kill an investigator when necessary." Remember, this is a game about horror, so the threat of death (or worse) hangs over the heads of the investigators whenever they delve into the mysteries of the universe... However, it should be restated that a keeper should only kill an investigator when necessary. Give them every chance to survive and any lucky break you can think of without compromising the integrity of your game or making it appear too obvious. A keeper who takes too much pleasure in killing player characters may soon find himself with no one to play with.
Or from their core book for 6th edition Call of Cthulhu:
Kill investigators dramatically. Death should mean something If an investigator faints, let him lie there instead of having the monster eat him. When an investigator with a non-player character hireling sleeps in a haunted house, and the Inhabitant Therein looks for prey, have it make away with the hireling unless you wake the investigator somehow, and give him a fighting chance. Investigators should not lead charmed lives, but neither should they be snuffed out casually. If death is to have any meaning---that is, if it is to conclude the story of a life---death should come as the consequence of choices freely made.
In other words, even though PC death and the threat of PC death is a part of the game and is important for setting the tone, death shouldn't be arbitrary and meaningless.
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
My campaign worlds are not CR appropriate. Sure, I toss out CR appropriate adventure hooks, but I will not hide the fact that there is an ancient red dragon living in the nearby mountains from a group of 1st level characters. So if they ignore the warnings from the local NPCs and decide to go check out this dragon living on the mountain-top... I guess the dragon will eat well that day.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My campaign worlds are not CR appropriate. Sure, I toss out CR appropriate adventure hooks, but I will not hide the fact that there is an ancient red dragon living in the nearby mountains from a group of 1st level characters. So if they ignore the warnings from the local NPCs and decide to go check out this dragon living on the mountain-top... I guess the dragon will eat well that day.
I totally agree with this and this is how we play. The world exists, and your choice is how you choose to interact with it and what you follow up on.
GMs are entitled to be 100% protective of their setting while players are not entitled the same thing for their characters ?
I get it.
I am just left wondering where telling a story and playing a role disappeared.
Players are totally entitled to be protective of their characters. It's called a story, just as half a dozen folks suggested the overly protective GM should write.
The question, which hasn't been answered outside of "it's stupid!" is what is this arbitrary death? How is it meaningless?
In the aforementioned traps, it shows the lack of training the heroes have, the lack of skills, it illustrates that all those skeletons and bits of treasure dropped next to the deadly trap isn't just window dressing. So there's that. Maybe it makes you question what is going on when you cart Bob back to get raised and/or meet his replacement. Maybe you find a guide. Maybe you find another way.
Or in other words, maybe the GM isn't out to get you.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Insanity is by far the better outcome, but I don't see the disagreement. For one, Call of Cthulhu is a game where the investigators are quite rarely given any advantage. They are more fragile, monsters are truly deadly and worse can affect their sanity in ways that leave a character utterly useless or worse permanently insane after enough time. When I see
Give them every chance to survive and any lucky break you can think of without compromising the integrity of your game or making it appear too obvious.
I agree it's necessarily in CoC, otherwise the investigators wouldn't have a chance of having even 1 survivor from most scenarios. However, that's pretty much baked into Pathfinder exactly as is. You have the heroes given every advantage. They have more money, better stats, almost always better choices in terms of character power, the agency to decide when they want to fight and where they want to fight, action economy, and the CR system is skewed towards making sure they have an advantage in even difficult (Cr+2 or +3) fights, and there are spells in the middle and high levels that negate death itself. If a PC dies after all that, through bad luck on a save or a lucky crit by the enemy, well stuff happens.
Also, "without compromising the integrity of the game" is a pretty big qualifier there, and it's where personal preference comes into play. It's not wrong to play the game in a way that nobody dies, whatever game you play, so long as that is the agreed upon situation. In a game such as that nothing short of divine intervention to save the PCs (and maybe not even that) will compromise the integrity of the game. In another style (one I prefer) choosing to risk yourself in combat or a dangerous situation means that you accept the dice as arbiters of fate/friction/chance. Fudging an open roll so the PC survives instead of dies might compromise the integrity of a game under those assumptions.
I want to be clear that I don't care what other people decide to do in their games. If you want to play where half the PCs die each session and the enemies go out of their way to slaughter PCs in droves, great! If you want to play where nobody ever gets below half-hp and enemies go out of their way to keep PCs alive, great! I think that telling someone else they are doing it wrong is, in itself, doing it wrong, and while I am biased towards my way of doing things I hope I don't come across as condemning others for their choices (And if you are getting that feel, just tell yourself I'm a guy on the internet and my opinion matters not a bit, that might help). I do care when people misrepresent others' arguments, make false assumptions about them, or tell someone what they can/can't do (like the start of this thread, the idea that shadowsoul can't both like games where death is in the hands of fate and put lots of work into developed PCs).
When Wash died, was it arbitrary?
No.
Remember the uproar in the fanbase over how Wash died? His was a very unpopular character death. Did you bring up Wash as an example of how the meaningless death of a major character was widely perceived as a bad thing, as a detriment to the story?
GMs are entitled to be 100% protective of their setting while players are not entitled the same thing for their characters ?
I get it.
I am just left wondering where telling a story and playing a role disappeared.
Well even if there is a TPK, the campaign need not be over. Nor, at the conclusion of a campaign, does that preclude visiting the setting again for another campaign. The two issues - character death and setting retirement - need not have any relationship.
Remember the uproar in the fanbase over how Wash died? His was a very unpopular character death. Did you bring up Wash as an example of how the meaningless death of a major character was widely perceived as a bad thing, as a detriment to the story?When Wash died, was it arbitrary?
No.
Was Wash's death a detriment to the story? I don't think so. I think it enhanced it, as sad as it was.
|
|
GMs are entitled to be 100% protective of their setting while players are not entitled the same thing for their characters ?
I get it.
I am just left wondering where telling a story and playing a role disappeared.
It hasn't disappeared.
But games such as Pathfinder/D&D are not novels and were not designed that way. Can you play in that style? Yes you can.
What ever happens to your character happens, whether your first character is the one who makes it to the end of the campaign, or your third one. Apparently the other two were meant to only make it as far as they did.
Was Wash's death a detriment to the story? I don't think so. I think it enhanced it, as sad as it was.
Cool. But you have to recognize that a lot of people disagree.
What ever happens to your character happens, whether your first character is the one who makes it to the end of the campaign, or your third one. Apparently the other two were meant to only make it as far as they did.
You make it sound inevitable. The DM can choose how to affect the outcome. They can choose to not have the monster coup de grâce the paralyzed PC. They can decide that the poisoned pit trap they'd originally placed in that corridor (the trap that would likely kill the rogue who failed her perception check) doesn't actually exist. After the rogue rolls a save, they can decide that the DC on the poison was really 14, not 16, so the rogue succeeds on the save. They can fudge die rolls and say that the monster's attack misses.
There's lots of ways as a DM you can affect the story. You choose to affect it one way, or you choose differently affect it another way. The actions you do choose aren't inevitable.
|
|
Was Wash's death a detriment to the story? I don't think so. I think it enhanced it, as sad as it was.Cool. But you have to recognize that a lot of people disagree.
What ever happens to your character happens, whether your first character is the one who makes it to the end of the campaign, or your third one. Apparently the other two were meant to only make it as far as they did.You make it sound inevitable. The DM can choose how to affect the outcome. They can choose to not have the monster coup de grâce the paralyzed PC. They can decide that the poisoned pit trap they'd originally placed in that corridor (the trap that would likely kill the rogue who failed her perception check) doesn't actually exist. After the rogue rolls a save, they can decide that the DC on the poison was really 14, not 16, so the rogue succeeds on the save. They can fudge die rolls and say that the monster's attack misses.
There's lots of ways as a DM you can affect the story. You choose to affect it one way, or you choose differently affect it another way. The actions you do choose aren't inevitable.
Coup de grace is DM choice, you getting hit with a crit, or failing your save vs Finger of Death is not DM choice. The game comes with certain tools that are used to simulate certain aspects of the world. Instead of dying out right from somethings, you are given AC, hit points, and saves. You are also given things like healing and resurrection so there doesn't have to be an end to that character. Now sometimes there are times when these things aren't available and the character does die. You already play in a game with a safety net, why do you need more protection from the DM?
You would be better off just having story time.
Coup de grace is DM choice, you getting his with a crit, or failing your save vs Finger of Death is not DM choice.
You chose to not change the DC on the finger of death. The game doesn't explode if you change something from what was originally written down.
You are also given things like healing and resurrection so there doesn't have to be an end to that character.
Maybe this wasn't clear: if resurrection is relatively cheap and easy to come by for the party, then obviously character death is less of an issue. In this case, character death doesn't mean the end of playing that character, so it's more in line with ability drain, level drain, or other temporary setbacks. I'm not aware of anyone arguing those should be stricken from the game.
On the other hand, there are many situations when resurrection isn't available. This is the case under consideration.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Remember the uproar in the fanbase over how Wash died? His was a very unpopular character death. Did you bring up Wash as an example of how the meaningless death of a major character was widely perceived as a bad thing, as a detriment to the story?When Wash died, was it arbitrary?
No.
Yes. And it made the movie better.
It was also unpopular when Old Yeller died.
I do not know who Wash is, but I know plenty of times I felt like someone dying in a movie, even a horror movie, was boring or I just didn't like it. In a game, the important thing is that people are having fun. If they think their character dying isn't enjoyable or adds nothing, then why do it?
And those people are worse at Sci Fi fantasy writing than Joss Whedon.Was Wash's death a detriment to the story? I don't think so. I think it enhanced it, as sad as it was.Cool. But you have to recognize that a lot of people disagree.
That's not how that works.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Edit: I'll also note that you're moving from "Where is the problem with <the way I play>?" to If you don't play the way I play you're having badwrongfun.
You would be better off just having story time.
SpooOOooOOkyyy
Also, seconding the badness of false dichotomies. And questioning the use of Joss Whedon to show that certain deaths aren't arbitrary. He's received a ton of criticism for defaulting to it for cheap drama or for adhering to a sort of required sacrifice that ultimately winds up feeling artificial because now everyone is looking out for it.