Why can't I care deeply about my character and accept arbitrary death?

[thejeff]

shallowsoul wrote:

There is no number to how often it happens or even if it where to happen. That is the nature of playing a game that requires dice. You could save against every trap you come across, or you could get lucky and side step every brutal crit and come out with just a few bruises, but sometimes people aren't so lucky.

It's about accepting what happens when using the game by default. The game already provides people with ways of bringing your character back but there are also times when a PC can't be brought back and that is just a fact of the game as a whole.

You should never write your characters story assuming that he is going to make it to the end unless your DM tells you it's okay and the story essentially has a rigged ending to where you know whats going to happen. But if that is the case then why are you using the Pathfinder system?

Yeah, yeah, I get it. I know the dice rule and there are no guarantees.

But really, you have absolutely no idea, even in the broadest most general terms how often characters get permanently killed in your games? You can't even tell me if it's closer to 3-4 per session or 1 every couple of years?
I'm just trying to get a vague feel for how lethal people are talking.

[thejeff]

shallowsoul wrote:

thejeff wrote:

As you've been told before, for some of us, it's not about how hard it is to come up with a new concept, but about losing that character's connection to the campaign. He'll have his own sub-plots and character arcs, he'll have built connections with NPCs, etc. When he dies all of that goes with him. Or, sometimes, can be picked up by another PC, but that generally doesn't work as well.

The new PC may be a cool concept and may even bring more stuff in through backstory, but it will take time to build up the depth of a long played character.

Now, I don't mind the occasional death too much, even an "arbitrary" one, though I prefer deaths that come with some closure, tying up character arcs rather than leaving them dangling. But if the deaths happen too often, then there's no longer time for character's to build up depth, much less actually have resolution. So why bother even

You should never write your characters story assuming that he is going to make it to the end unless your DM tells you it's okay and the story essentially has a rigged ending to where you know whats going to happen. But if that is the case then why are you using the Pathfinder system?

I don't even know what you mean by that. I never "write my character's story". But my character is part of the story of the campaign and that may have some sub-plots that focus more on him and those sub-plots may come to resolutions or they may get dropped when he dies to a random encounter on the way somewhere. If that happens too often, then there's never any resolution and it becomes pointless to even bother with. Just focus on the dungeon crawl as tactical exercise, which can be fun too, but isn't my favorite part of gaming.

[John Kretzer]

Read this long thread and would like to weigh in.

Personaly I am ok with character's death due to many of the 'atbitary' reasons listed. And I would have major issues (and I am sure many others as well who perfer my style of play) with another player's character having special treatment due to his or her whining about something.

The reason why is it break immersion when the of the gritty game I want to play in when one character has plot armor. It makes the game less fun for me when I do everything right and can still die(which I think is good) and another player at the table can do everything wrong and survive. The world stops beinmg interesting at that point.

Now I am willing to adapt my play style for much less leathal play styles games and can still enjoy them...so why can't people adapt to a leathal play style? You people talk about adaption and compromise as if they are bad things.

[Pax Veritas]

Oh, just to pop back in to add one more thought.

Killing PCs arbitrarily is the mark of a poor game master.

* * *

That said, some situations are tough, dice rolls sometimes go very badly, and good characters die. A trap is not an arbitrary way to die, per se, provided everything was done to inform the players adequately, and there existed some chance of success, and the players did their best... there's really nothing to complain about. I suppose the trap should be appropriate for the level of game play, and, the death I would argue should be CLEAN and free from technical errors.

Otherwise, yes, players are not entitled to their success, as this makes for a hokey game. A seasoned GM knows when to play his cards, and when to ease up the ebb and flow of challenges, and how not to break characters nor kill them too arbitrarily.

[MrSin]

John Kretzer wrote:

Now I am willing to adapt my play style for much less leathal play styles games and can still enjoy them...so why can't people adapt to a leathal play style? You people talk about adaption and compromise as if they are bad things.

Who said compromise and adaptation were bad? Its definitely not a bad thing if a someone can adapt and compromise.

[pres man]

MrSin wrote:

John Kretzer wrote:

Now I am willing to adapt my play style for much less leathal play styles games and can still enjoy them...so why can't people adapt to a leathal play style? You people talk about adaption and compromise as if they are bad things.

Who said compromise and adaptation were bad? Its definitely not a bad thing if a someone can adapt and compromise.

"you people". Obviously. ;D

[thejeff]

John Kretzer wrote:

Read this long thread and would like to weigh in.

Personaly I am ok with character's death due to many of the 'atbitary' reasons listed. And I would have major issues (and I am sure many others as well who perfer my style of play) with another player's character having special treatment due to his or her whining about something.

The reason why is it break immersion when the of the gritty game I want to play in when one character has plot armor. It makes the game less fun for me when I do everything right and can still die(which I think is good) and another player at the table can do everything wrong and survive. The world stops beinmg interesting at that point.

Now I am willing to adapt my play style for much less leathal play styles games and can still enjoy them...so why can't people adapt to a leathal play style? You people talk about adaption and compromise as if they are bad things.

I can adapt to them, but I don't like them as much. I dislike the paranoid behavior and tactics that are often suggested to adapt to them. And too frequent death ruins my immersion and many of the things I play for.

That said, I don't want "plot armor" and "special treatment" either. I don't want to be the one character in the game who can't die. I don't want a game where we all should be dying, but the GM keeps fudging so we don't, which is what some posters seems to be envisioning.
I just want a less lethal game overall, so my characters don't all have to be paranoid tactical masters. They can make in-character mistakes, take chances and generally behave heroically without dying too often.

[Chris Lambertz]

Removed a couple more posts.

[Immortal Greed]

shallowsoul wrote:

Mikaze wrote:

shallowsoul wrote:

Mikaze wrote:

shallowsoul wrote:

Detect Magic wrote:

I don't mind if my character dies during an epic, last stand confrontation, or a hail-mary attempt to stall the big-bad's advance long enough for my party to flee, but to die... arbitrarily? That's just a bummer.

Sucks but you will get over it.

The PC they wanted to play won't, however.

So they play another PC?

Please don't bring up the extreme case of the player only having that one concept ever.

Who is bringing it up?

Fact of the matter is, that player still lost that character. They may have been very invested in that character. Some players don't enjoy losing such characters to seemingly arbitrary deaths, for a variety of reasons.

Different strokes.

Nobody likes character death. Just like nobody like losing but it's a fact when you play games. Now if your DM wants to eliminate death all together then they can do that but there are other games that are better suited for that kind of play.

*Raises hand*

I like character death.

Whether it is a char I am playing or the chars of others, sometimes a character death really has meaning, is liked at the table or funny. It can demonstrates something like heroic sacrifice, a char death can be very cool indeed (killing self to kill boss as well), entertaining (funny for the whole table, like the guy that fell into lava after destroying the way to activate a bridge) or reinforces the setting: dies of thirst in dark sun, killed by magic traps in Cormanthor, eaten by a snake in Katapesh/Calimshan or murdered by bandits in the River Kingdoms.

I have been happy when my chars have died or nearly died. I can like it. As a dm when it happens, sometimes I think that is perfect, that really helps the story, yes, even a death to a trap. That can bring up and reinforce the themes of danger and sacrifice, especially if a partner is left alive for some rp. Then you can make a new char and enjoy their adventures.

One of my old rping buddies really can accept a char death. He has asked for a good death when tired of a char, and can roll with the punches if a char dies to a monster, trap or environmental hazard (lava). He can roll with the punches, like it and move on to a new char, something else he has wanted to play for a while. If this a problem for you, can you please ask yourself, why can't you?

Immortal heroes are boring. Where is the danger? Why are you against the danger zone?

http://purplegaming.slashmeow.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/danger-zone.jp g

[Generic Dungeon Master]

shallowsoul wrote:

Oh here we go with the "badwrongfun" card.

I will state this again one more time. Why do you continue to use a certain game system that you hand wave away?

Because I can! And I'm having fun.

[John Kretzer]

MrSin wrote:

John Kretzer wrote:

Now I am willing to adapt my play style for much less leathal play styles games and can still enjoy them...so why can't people adapt to a leathal play style? You people talk about adaption and compromise as if they are bad things.

Who said compromise and adaptation were bad? Its definitely not a bad thing if a someone can adapt and compromise.

Re read this thread....

[John Kretzer]

thejeff wrote:

I can adapt to them, but I don't like them as much. I dislike the paranoid behavior and tactics that are often suggested to adapt to them. And too frequent death ruins my immersion and many of the things I play for.

That said, I don't want "plot armor" and "special treatment" either. I don't want to be the one character in the game who can't die. I don't want a game where we all should be dying, but the GM keeps fudging so we don't, which is what some posters seems to be envisioning.
I just want a less lethal game overall, so my characters don't all have to be paranoid tactical masters. They can make in-character mistakes, take chances and generally behave heroically without dying too often.

Um...it is funny here...I am wondering if you see what you are doing here...

You are 'envisioning' all games where death can happen to dice roll and such as players taking 'parniod behavior and tactic'...which I can say I have never seen a game in which that happens actualy enforce.

Yet you are saying we are envisioning the game played in the way you favor as being one way.

I find it funny because both sides always take these things to the worst degree. I guess that is the internet for you.

Anyway...got a question...if the GM will fudge the dice so when you take a 'chance' or behave 'heriocaly' so you survive....what exactly is the 'chance' you are taking? How are you being 'heroic'?

[Berik]

um, he said that he doesn't want a game where the GM has to fudge the dice to make the party survive. He just wants a game which is less lethal than what some other people enjoy.

Look, every game based on randomness is going to have an element of chance to it. But in a game where there's a trap every 5 feet there are going to be more deaths than a game where there are no traps anywhere. Both of those groups are playing within the rules, but one game is more lethal than the other.

A similar argument can be made for monster encounters, where the chance of success or failure is going to be influenced by how those encounters are set up.

There's always an amount of chance, but in simple terms some people want a game where they're 99% likely to succeed all the way down to some people wanting a game where they have a 1% chance to succeed. None of those people are wrong, they just want a more or less potentially lethal experience.

[Immortal Greed]

shallowsoul wrote:

knightnday wrote:

shallowsoul wrote:

Detect Magic wrote:

I don't mind if my character dies during an epic, last stand confrontation, or a hail-mary attempt to stall the big-bad's advance long enough for my party to flee, but to die... arbitrarily? That's just a bummer.

Sucks but you will get over it.

And it's comments along this line that start many of the fights we've been having. I happen to like dungeon crawls and traps; that said, "Get over it" isn't a great approach to take to the players of your game.

Sure, they'll get over it, or at least many will. But some will harbor grudges against killer GMs, and you in particular, if they believe there is any sort of malice (real or imagined) in your actions. Further, as Mikaze and Detect Magic were saying, there are other complications to adding in a new character into the existing party. They are not insurmountable, but they do exist and represent time and energy lost to some people.

Not everyone enjoys the same sort of game as everyone else, nor does everyone keep a stack of disposable characters in case die rolls go bad and they have to bring out Bob the Barbarian IX, which is the same as all the others with a new number. From my experience, within a few sessions you should have an idea of what your players like and want out of a game, and at the very least should strive to incorporate some of that into the game. If they dislike keeping track of camp and random encounters, phase some of that out. Not into social play or urban adventures/detective work? Then you adapt and look for the things that make you all happy. Otherwise it makes for a long and tedious game. YMMV.

Let me stop you right there.

Player's dying by the rules of the game is not "DM's killing the players". If I said "bang you die", then you would have an argument but that's not what I am talking about. People need to stop this attitude of saying DMs are killing them if they die in the course of the game in any way but the way they want to...

Yep, yep, yep. If a player can't handle failure, don't play in a game where you may fail.

[Digitalelf]

What I found funny, and mind you, not in a mocking while pointing and laughing kind of funny, just something that made me grin because of the circle of logic used, was when more than one poster had stated that traps break their immersion, and then added that having to replace dead party members also breaks their immersion...

What I found humorous with that is these people are fine with believing in a world that is totally devoid of traps (or that somehow their characters miraculously never enter a dungeon that has them), but somehow, they can't buy into introducing a new character to a party that is out in the middle of the wilderness.

Just seems to me that if you believe in a world that no one places a trap to protect their home/lair/chest full of gold (or that you just keep getting “lucky” by never finding homes/lairs/chests full of gold that have them), then it should be an easy mental leap to replace characters that are out in the boonies as well...

Oh well, whatever style of gaming floats your caravel...

Good gaming to ya! :-)

[Redjack_rose]

I can help but think this thread has gone off topic vastly.

The main questioned proposed/idea commented on was "Is Caring deeply about a character incompatible with accepting the chance for your character to die an arbitrary death?" which is one-hundred percent possible by the rules as written (and intended).

It has nothing to do with trap lethality, dungeon design, monsters, etc... I see some people stating they like (or even expect) to have some to all creative control of when or how a character dies. (Nevermind that death can often be little more than a minor inconvenience for pathfinders).

Is this "wrongfunbadtofu" or whatever that odd word is? No... but it's also a very strange notion. It is -impossible- to play Pathfinder by the rules (as written and intended) and not have arbitrary deaths. Monsters crit, saves fail, etc... No matter how the GM has setup or designed the encounters, and the only way to 100% insure your character makes it all the way to th "epic" or "Good" death you want and/or believe it should have is to fudge, bend, and break rules/rolls.

I'm reminded of 2 recent encounters, both revolving around the same issue: The Monster got the hit in the surprise round, then high initiative and laid waste to a character(s) in the first round.

First, my Paladin-Rogue had stepped just into a small room to investigate it for the party. A cast of detect evil angered the room's monster, and she found herself on the wrong end of a (previously) invisible demon. After eating a pretty hard hit in the surprise round, I failed my initiative and the monster hit me again. A lucky crit, and my character went from full to dead before she could act. It -sucked- a lot. Like take a breather and figure out wtf just happened sucked. It was just bad rolls though, and there is nothing the GM or I could do about it, outside of fudging the rules. Wasn't even that difficult of a monster!

Second,the GM hit us with 3 petrified maidens in a surprise round. Again, they also took initiative, hammering 2 of our party with flatfooted. It was so scary, my character actually revealed a special ability they had been hiding for RP reasons. Intense couple rounds, a nice recovery, and a won combat later, we all had a new great story to tell (this time we won).

Probably rambling on, but I just mean don't be surprised other's don't quite get this concept of "not accepting arbitrary death." As I said before, it is -impossible- for You and the GM, playing by the rules of the system, to -not- have the chance of arbitrary deaths.

[pres man]

Redjack_rose wrote:

The main questioned proposed/idea commented on was "Is Caring deeply about a character incompatible with accepting the chance for your character to die an arbitrary death?" which is one-hundred percent possible by the rules as written (and intended).

How about if the question was, "Can having a lethal game (character death every 2-5 sessions) inhibit players from developing deep character concepts?"

[thejeff]

John Kretzer wrote:

thejeff wrote:

I can adapt to them, but I don't like them as much. I dislike the paranoid behavior and tactics that are often suggested to adapt to them. And too frequent death ruins my immersion and many of the things I play for.

That said, I don't want "plot armor" and "special treatment" either. I don't want to be the one character in the game who can't die. I don't want a game where we all should be dying, but the GM keeps fudging so we don't, which is what some posters seems to be envisioning.
I just want a less lethal game overall, so my characters don't all have to be paranoid tactical masters. They can make in-character mistakes, take chances and generally behave heroically without dying too often.

Um...it is funny here...I am wondering if you see what you are doing here...

You are 'envisioning' all games where death can happen to dice roll and such as players taking 'parniod behavior and tactic'...which I can say I have never seen a game in which that happens actualy enforce.

Yet you are saying we are envisioning the game played in the way you favor as being one way.

I find it funny because both sides always take these things to the worst degree. I guess that is the internet for you.

Anyway...got a question...if the GM will fudge the dice so when you take a 'chance' or behave 'heriocaly' so you survive....what exactly is the 'chance' you are taking? How are you being 'heroic'?

A) I don't want fudging.

b)Even assuming fudging, I am not being heroic. I am sitting in a chair rolling dice. I know about the fudging (assuming the GM isn't hiding it). My character does not. He is risking his life with no assurances.
Without the fudging, he doesn't even know that he's only going to face CR-appropriate challenges and have a real chance of success.
Much like a heroic character in a story, who lives or dies based on the author's decisions. In a game it's always like that, to a greater or lesser degree.
Even in a sandbox game, the whole premise is based on turning down any real heroics and looking for dangers you can reasonably face. Same thing, but there it's done on the character level so, within game the character behaves less heroically.

c) And again, I'm not talking about "all deaths due to die rolls". I'm talking about a high chance of anti-climatic death. I can accept a small chance of it. Which is why I've kept asking the proponents about how often characters actually die in their games. And gotten no direct answers. Which makes me suspect it's not so often as the discussion makes me think, so many of these games would probably be fine by me.

[thejeff]

Redjack_rose wrote:

The main questioned proposed/idea commented on was "Is Caring deeply about a character incompatible with accepting the chance for your character to die an arbitrary death?" which is one-hundred percent possible by the rules as written (and intended).

It has nothing to do with trap lethality, dungeon design, monsters, etc... I see some people stating they like (or even expect) to have some to all creative control of when or how a character dies. (Nevermind that death can often be little more than a minor inconvenience for pathfinders).

Probably rambling on, but I just mean don't be surprised other's don't quite get this concept of "not accepting arbitrary death." As I said before, it is -impossible- for You and the GM, playing by the rules of the system, to -not- have the chance of arbitrary deaths.

It may not be possible to have no chance of arbitrary death, but it's certainly possible for a GM (or a group) to increase or decrease that chance. Even reduce it so far that it practically doesn't happen. Or increase it to Dungeon Crawl Classics levels.

And that has everything to do with trap lethality, dungeon design, monsters, etc.

[ciretose]

pres man wrote:

Redjack_rose wrote:

The main questioned proposed/idea commented on was "Is Caring deeply about a character incompatible with accepting the chance for your character to die an arbitrary death?" which is one-hundred percent possible by the rules as written (and intended).

How about if the question was, "Can having a lethal game (character death every 2-5 sessions) inhibit players from developing deep character concepts?"

To which I would counter "Can having a non-lethal game inhibit players immersion and interest in developing strategy and party synergy."

Since I have plot armor, why do I care about "danger"?

[PathlessBeth]

ciretose wrote:

pres man wrote:

Redjack_rose wrote:

The main questioned proposed/idea commented on was "Is Caring deeply about a character incompatible with accepting the chance for your character to die an arbitrary death?" which is one-hundred percent possible by the rules as written (and intended).

How about if the question was, "Can having a lethal game (character death every 2-5 sessions) inhibit players from developing deep character concepts?"

To which I would counter "Can having a non-lethal game inhibit players immersion and interest in developing strategy and party synergy."

Since I have plot armor, why do I care about "danger"?

Cute, you didn't even try to answer the question.

Also, the answer to your question is:
Irrelevant, because no real people on this thread (I'm not counting your hallucinations) have advocated for 'plot armor'. In fact, if you read either of the posts above yours, you'll see that the people who don't want constant death have explicitly been saying they wouldn't want plot armor, and that they do want a chance of death.

[thejeff]

ciretose wrote:

pres man wrote:

Redjack_rose wrote:

The main questioned proposed/idea commented on was "Is Caring deeply about a character incompatible with accepting the chance for your character to die an arbitrary death?" which is one-hundred percent possible by the rules as written (and intended).

How about if the question was, "Can having a lethal game (character death every 2-5 sessions) inhibit players from developing deep character concepts?"

To which I would counter "Can having a non-lethal game inhibit players immersion and interest in developing strategy and party synergy."

Since I have plot armor, why do I care about "danger"?

To which I would respond, "Yes it can. But I care more about developing deep characters."

And further: Do you see no middle ground between death every 2-5 sessions and non-lethal, plot-armored, unkillable? Because that's where I want to be.
Do you think the lethality level is strictly due to the player's actions, barring plot armor and fudging? That the GM can have no effect on it, within the rules? You've said things that imply that in the past, so I'm curious if I was just misreading you. Again, this is different from an absolute guarantee of survival.

[pres man]

"Losing" can still be:

Getting knocked unconscious.

Getting captured.

Getting robbed.

Getting all your valuables destroyed (Holy crap a rust monster, run!).

Failing to save the hostages.

Failing to stop the BBEG from taking over the world.

Failing to destroy the ring.

...

Most players don't like to get "owned", whether that involves their character actually dying or just getting "beat".

I think IF everyone was told their characters couldn't be killed, they just get knocked out, then you'd still have people trying their damn hardest not to have that happen. I know when I played KotOR, I often had party members KO'ed. I hated it and tried my hardest not to let it happened. But I didn't stop caring about the characters or the plot when it happened.

EDIT: I agree with thejeff, that "excessive" plot armor can be detriment. Anything taken to extremes is likely to harm any kind of game play.

[ciretose]

137ben wrote:

ciretose wrote:

pres man wrote:

Redjack_rose wrote:

The main questioned proposed/idea commented on was "Is Caring deeply about a character incompatible with accepting the chance for your character to die an arbitrary death?" which is one-hundred percent possible by the rules as written (and intended).

How about if the question was, "Can having a lethal game (character death every 2-5 sessions) inhibit players from developing deep character concepts?"

To which I would counter "Can having a non-lethal game inhibit players immersion and interest in developing strategy and party synergy."

Since I have plot armor, why do I care about "danger"?

Cute, you didn't even try to answer the question.

Also, the answer to your question is:
Irrelevant, because no real people on this thread (I'm not counting your hallucinations) have advocated for 'plot armor'. In fact, if you read either of the posts above yours, you'll see that the people who don't want constant death have explicitly been saying they wouldn't want plot armor, and that they do want a chance of death.

Why should I? The two questions are the two competing arguments.

And your answer to my question could be applied to his...

[Vaziir Jivaan]

I roll everything in front of my players when it comes to combat related functions, and my players love the transparency. They like knowing that they're surviving on their own ability coupled with luck and that they aren't fated to the whimsy of the DM. What keeps them alive when the dice fail?

Hero Points.

-Vaz

[pres man]

Vaziir Jivaan wrote:

I roll everything in front of my players when it comes to combat related functions, and my players love the transparency. They like knowing that they're surviving on their own ability coupled with luck and that they aren't fated to the whimsy of the DM.

I am also someone that rolls everything in the open. Even with that, I as the GM know, that there are times characters are saved due to my whims. A character gets knocked out and I don't hit them with a finishing blow, but instead move on to another character that is still up, they just got saved by my whim.

The idea is for players to "believe" their characters are surviving due to their own abilities and luck. If that is the truth or not, is largely irrelevant, merely if they believe it is true.

[Redneckdevil]

So people are okay with their character dying to a group of bandits that are lower than them because of the dice rolled against their favor?
Dm didn't put something higher level and its lower lethal than normal, woukd people still be okay with the death and not think the dms killing them simply because the dice rolled against their favor?

[thejeff]

Vaziir Jivaan wrote:

I roll everything in front of my players when it comes to combat related functions, and my players love the transparency. They like knowing that they're surviving on their own ability coupled with luck and that they aren't fated to the whimsy of the DM. What keeps them alive when the dice fail?

Hero Points.

That's a good point. Hero Points are a good rules-based approach to the issue.

I'm not to fond of that mechanic in general, but I may have to take another look at it.

Of course, some GMs could just respond by thinking "Well, they've got Hero Points, so I can make this a little more challenging and they'll still probably survive." Which sort of defeats the purpose.

[thejeff]

Redneckdevil wrote:

So people are okay with their character dying to a group of bandits that are lower than them because of the dice rolled against their favor?

Dm didn't put something higher level and its lower lethal than normal, woukd people still be okay with the death and not think the dms killing them simply because the dice rolled against their favor?

Depends.

I still would hate dying to some basically irrelevant random bandit encounter. It being crazy dice luck just makes it more frustrating.

As for whether I'd blame the GM, that depends.

As pres man suggests, GM tactics still can play a role. If the bandits focus fire to kill one character, if a character goes down and the bandits finish him off rather than move on to still standing opponents, or any other GM decisions that lead directly to character death when there are other valid choices, then it's not "simply because the dice rolled against their favor."
Or if the encounter was built to be very swingy, with good chances of dying from a single very unlikely hit, even though it wasn't technically hard. The stereotypical great-ax barbarian against low-level characters, for example. Over a long series of fights not as dangerous as a greatsword, but if he does crit in his one fight, someone dies.

[knightnday]

thejeff wrote:

Redneckdevil wrote:

So people are okay with their character dying to a group of bandits that are lower than them because of the dice rolled against their favor?

Dm didn't put something higher level and its lower lethal than normal, woukd people still be okay with the death and not think the dms killing them simply because the dice rolled against their favor?

Depends.

I still would hate dying to some basically irrelevant random bandit encounter. It being crazy dice luck just makes it more frustrating.

As for whether I'd blame the GM, that depends.

As pres man suggests, GM tactics still can play a role. If the bandits focus fire to kill one character, if a character goes down and the bandits finish him off rather than move on to still standing opponents, or any other GM decisions that lead directly to character death when there are other valid choices, then it's not "simply because the dice rolled against their favor."
Or if the encounter was built to be very swingy, with good chances of dying from a single very unlikely hit, even though it wasn't technically hard. The stereotypical great-ax barbarian against low-level characters, for example. Over a long series of fights not as dangerous as a greatsword, but if he does crit in his one fight, someone dies.

For our table, we've not had a party death in years. Overall, doubt I've killed more than a handful of characters in D&D or Pathfinder, although that count gets worse in other games (Shadowrun, Traveler, Battletec, etc etc).

I don't like to fudge or pull punches with my players. That said, I will often tell them, "Why don't we take a bio break and you guys chat while I get a new drink and we step out of IC for a few minutes." That way they can reconsider their actions, think on tactics and so on.

This is important because the players are not seasoned adventurers with skills and powers beyond normal folk. They are people around a table who cannot always see, hear, taste, smell, or perceive what is actually going on. Perhaps my description was confusing. Perhaps they aren't quite sure where everyone is standing or what an object is. It's important to listen to what the problem is and work with them for 100 percent comprehension. Now if you've done all that and they still insist on spitting in the king/mafia don/dragon's face, running down the hallway that certainly looks trapped, or falling prey to an ambush .. well. I've told them and they've agreed that the dice fall and we see what happens. Usually they take their opportunities and rethink things.

We've used Hero Points as well, and for many of my players it adds to their sense of comfort that they aren't just going to die and start all over again, that there are ways to lessen the blow, whether it is loss of gear, status, or other effects as pres man suggested.

And yes, this applies to random encounters, which, I might add, have added a great deal to certain adventures they have been on and spiraled into full sessions of their own.

[thejeff]

knightnday wrote:

For our table, we've not had a party death in years. Overall, doubt I've killed more than a handful of characters in D&D or Pathfinder, although that count gets worse in other games (Shadowrun, Traveler, Battletec, etc etc).

I don't like to fudge or pull punches with my players. That said, I will often tell them, "Why don't we take a bio break and you guys chat while I get a new drink and we step out of IC for a few minutes." That way they can reconsider their actions, think on tactics and so on.

Thanks. That does help. I wouldn't have any problem with such an approach.

[Vaziir Jivaan]

thejeff wrote:

Redneckdevil wrote:

So people are okay with their character dying to a group of bandits that are lower than them because of the dice rolled against their favor?

Dm didn't put something higher level and its lower lethal than normal, woukd people still be okay with the death and not think the dms killing them simply because the dice rolled against their favor?

Depends.

I still would hate dying to some basically irrelevant random bandit encounter. It being crazy dice luck just makes it more frustrating.

As for whether I'd blame the GM, that depends.

As pres man suggests, GM tactics still can play a role. If the bandits focus fire to kill one character, if a character goes down and the bandits finish him off rather than move on to still standing opponents, or any other GM decisions that lead directly to character death when there are other valid choices, then it's not "simply because the dice rolled against their favor."
Or if the encounter was built to be very swingy, with good chances of dying from a single very unlikely hit, even though it wasn't technically hard. The stereotypical great-ax barbarian against low-level characters, for example. Over a long series of fights not as dangerous as a greatsword, but if he does crit in his one fight, someone dies.

GM tactics ALWAYS play a role regardless of any caveat. I don't generally tend to finish player's off once their down, using the basic premise that the antagonists will offer final blows once the PC's are rendered relatively helpless (read as: 0 or fewer HP's). Otherwise, I could kill player's off left and right just by focusing all attacks on one PC till their down. It all comes down to reasonable tactics and a tempered hand.

And Hero Points.

-Vaz

[shallowsoul]

pres man wrote:

Vaziir Jivaan wrote:

I roll everything in front of my players when it comes to combat related functions, and my players love the transparency. They like knowing that they're surviving on their own ability coupled with luck and that they aren't fated to the whimsy of the DM.

I am also someone that rolls everything in the open. Even with that, I as the GM know, that there are times characters are saved due to my whims. A character gets knocked out and I don't hit them with a finishing blow, but instead move on to another character that is still up, they just got saved by my whim.

The idea is for players to "believe" their characters are surviving due to their own abilities and luck. If that is the truth or not, is largely irrelevant, merely if they believe it is true.

Well when someone doesn't like a default game where they could die by the dice and they don't expect to play in that kind of game then there is no danger to believe in.

[pres man]

shallowsoul wrote:

pres man wrote:

Vaziir Jivaan wrote:

I roll everything in front of my players when it comes to combat related functions, and my players love the transparency. They like knowing that they're surviving on their own ability coupled with luck and that they aren't fated to the whimsy of the DM.

I am also someone that rolls everything in the open. Even with that, I as the GM know, that there are times characters are saved due to my whims. A character gets knocked out and I don't hit them with a finishing blow, but instead move on to another character that is still up, they just got saved by my whim.

The idea is for players to "believe" their characters are surviving due to their own abilities and luck. If that is the truth or not, is largely irrelevant, merely if they believe it is true.

Well when someone doesn't like a default game where they could die by the dice and they don't expect to play in that kind of game then there is no danger to believe in.

pres man wrote:

"Losing" can still be:

Getting knocked unconscious.

Getting captured.

Getting robbed.

Getting all your valuables destroyed (Holy crap a rust monster, run!).

Failing to save the hostages.

Failing to stop the BBEG from taking over the world.

Failing to destroy the ring.

...

[thejeff]

shallowsoul wrote:

pres man wrote:

Vaziir Jivaan wrote:

I roll everything in front of my players when it comes to combat related functions, and my players love the transparency. They like knowing that they're surviving on their own ability coupled with luck and that they aren't fated to the whimsy of the DM.

I am also someone that rolls everything in the open. Even with that, I as the GM know, that there are times characters are saved due to my whims. A character gets knocked out and I don't hit them with a finishing blow, but instead move on to another character that is still up, they just got saved by my whim.

The idea is for players to "believe" their characters are surviving due to their own abilities and luck. If that is the truth or not, is largely irrelevant, merely if they believe it is true.

Well when someone doesn't like a default game where they could die by the dice and they don't expect to play in that kind of game then there is no danger to believe in.

Is there any functional difference between believing in a danger that isn't real and believing in a danger that is real? At least in a game. If the player believes it's real, his experience will be exactly the same, right?

The only way I can see to tell, assuming the GM is clever about preserving the illusion, is to see if characters actually die.

So, how often do PCs actually die in your games? That seems a more useful piece of information than all the talk about "Could die by the dice."

[ciretose]

@thejeff - It becomes very obvious to most of us when the dice are fudged or the GM pulls punches.

Particularly those of us who play on both sides of the screen.

In our game, I would say there is an actual death (not 0 hit points, but real death) maybe once every few month in low level, but every 5 or 6 session in high level (Levels where Raise dead and such are readily accessable)

Nature of the game changes once the ability to not actually die is introduced.

[thejeff]

ciretose wrote:

@thejeff - It becomes very obvious to most of us when the dice are fudged or the GM pulls punches.

Particularly those of us who play on both sides of the screen.

In our game, I would say there is an actual death (not 0 hit points, but real death) maybe once every few month in low level, but every 5 or 6 session in high level (Levels where Raise dead and such are readily accessable)

Nature of the game changes once the ability to not actually die is introduced.

Yeah, I'm really only concerned about permanent death. Dying and getting Raised isn't really any different than getting knocked out and healed in terms of its effect on the game. Money loss, I guess, but not start a new character.

Every few months wouldn't be a game breaker for me.

[ciretose]

thejeff wrote:

ciretose wrote:

@thejeff - It becomes very obvious to most of us when the dice are fudged or the GM pulls punches.

Particularly those of us who play on both sides of the screen.

In our game, I would say there is an actual death (not 0 hit points, but real death) maybe once every few month in low level, but every 5 or 6 session in high level (Levels where Raise dead and such are readily accessable)

Nature of the game changes once the ability to not actually die is introduced.

Yeah, I'm really only concerned about permanent death. Dying and getting Raised isn't really any different than getting knocked out and healed in terms of its effect on the game. Money loss, I guess, but not start a new character.

Every few months wouldn't be a game breaker for me.

Not individually. Someone in the party.

[pres man]

ciretose wrote:

In our game, I would say there is an actual death (not 0 hit points, but real death) maybe once every few month in low level, but every 5 or 6 session in high level (Levels where Raise dead and such are readily accessable)

Nature of the game changes once the ability to not actually die is introduced.

This brings up another aspect to the issue. If lack of death is harming the immersion of game play, does the lack of permanent death also harm the immersion of game play? Does having access to magic that can bring someone back from the dead effect game play just as much as not having death be part of game play at all?

[ciretose]

pres man wrote:

ciretose wrote:

In our game, I would say there is an actual death (not 0 hit points, but real death) maybe once every few month in low level, but every 5 or 6 session in high level (Levels where Raise dead and such are readily accessable)

Nature of the game changes once the ability to not actually die is introduced.

This brings up another aspect to the issue. If lack of death is harming the immersion of game play, does the lack of permanent death also harm the immersion of game play? Does having access to magic that can bring someone back from the dead effect game play just as much as not having death be part of game play at all?

I personally think the loss of actual penalty has.

At higher levels, I notice players take many more risks they wouldn't at lower levels, knowing they can be brought back.

When there was at least XP loss, I saw this less often.

But that is just my anecdotal experience.

[Kthulhu]

To me, it's not really that characters take more risk, it's that those risks seem a lot less heroic if the assumption is that your buddy is standing by ready to resurrect you when/if you die.

Risking your life: heroic.

Risking minor inconvenience: less heroic.

[shallowsoul]

thejeff wrote:

shallowsoul wrote:

pres man wrote:

Vaziir Jivaan wrote:

I roll everything in front of my players when it comes to combat related functions, and my players love the transparency. They like knowing that they're surviving on their own ability coupled with luck and that they aren't fated to the whimsy of the DM.

I am also someone that rolls everything in the open. Even with that, I as the GM know, that there are times characters are saved due to my whims. A character gets knocked out and I don't hit them with a finishing blow, but instead move on to another character that is still up, they just got saved by my whim.

The idea is for players to "believe" their characters are surviving due to their own abilities and luck. If that is the truth or not, is largely irrelevant, merely if they believe it is true.

Well when someone doesn't like a default game where they could die by the dice and they don't expect to play in that kind of game then there is no danger to believe in.

Is there any functional difference between believing in a danger that isn't real and believing in a danger that is real? At least in a game. If the player believes it's real, his experience will be exactly the same, right?

The only way I can see to tell, assuming the GM is clever about preserving the illusion, is to see if characters actually die.

So, how often do PCs actually die in your games? That seems a more useful piece of information than all the talk about "Could die by the dice."

If you are someone who doesn't like "die by the traps" or "die by a surprise and a crit" games and you sit down to run, why would I think there will be danger? If I know your playstyle and that style is allowing people to basically choose how they die then what do I have to fear?

People in my games have that excitement/fear because they know I don't fudge and I let the dice fall. Doesn't matter how long they have had that character nor does it matter how long they worked on their backstory. If the situation comes up where you are gone for good then you better have another character ready to bring in.

You can't make someone believe in fear when that person knows you won't be bringing it to the table.

[Kthulhu]

I AM IMMORTAL!

I HAVE INSIDE ME BLOOD OF KINGS!

[MrSin]

shallowsoul wrote:

If you are someone who doesn't like "die by the traps" or "die by a surprise and a crit" games and you sit down to run, why would I think there will be danger? If I know your playstyle and that style is allowing people to basically choose how they die then what do I have to fear?

How does not liking people to die from stepping on a trap and being insta-gibbed or from lucky scythe crits mean that you get to choose how you die and have nothing to fear? Seems like a bit of a stretch to me imo.

Kthulhu wrote:

I AM IMMORTAL!

I HAVE INSIDE ME BLOOD OF KINGS!

This coming from a skull? Where do you even keep your blood?

[thejeff]

shallowsoul wrote:

thejeff wrote:

shallowsoul wrote:

Well when someone doesn't like a default game where they could die by the dice and they don't expect to play in that kind of game then there is no danger to believe in.

Is there any functional difference between believing in a danger that isn't real and believing in a danger that is real? At least in a game. If the player believes it's real, his experience will be exactly the same, right?

The only way I can see to tell, assuming the GM is clever about preserving the illusion, is to see if characters actually die.

So, how often do PCs actually die in your games? That seems a more useful piece of information than all the talk about "Could die by the dice."

If you are someone who doesn't like "die by the traps" or "die by a surprise and a crit" games and you sit down to run, why would I think there will be danger? If I know your playstyle and that style is allowing people to basically choose how they die then what do I have to fear?

People in my games have that excitement/fear because they know I don't fudge and I let the dice fall. Doesn't matter how long they have had that character nor does it matter how long they worked on their backstory. If the situation comes up where you are gone for good then you better have another character ready to bring in.

You can't make someone believe in fear when that person knows you won't be bringing it to the table.

If you believe in the illusion of danger, you'll have the excitement/fear. And I've met very few GMs who announce "You won't be in any danger".

But more importantly, that type of excitement/fear isn't what I'm looking for in a game, so I don't really care if it's not as intense. I'm far more interested in long term goals/threats. "Can we stop the BBEG's seemingly unstoppable plan?" or "Will we rescue the dragon in time?" rather than "will I die around the next corner". Slow burn rather than sudden shock.
And of course, dramatic, plot relevant turning points don't fall under arbitrary deaths.

Different playstyle.

[thejeff]

MrSin wrote:

shallowsoul wrote:

If you are someone who doesn't like "die by the traps" or "die by a surprise and a crit" games and you sit down to run, why would I think there will be danger? If I know your playstyle and that style is allowing people to basically choose how they die then what do I have to fear?

How does not liking people to die from stepping on a trap and being insta-gibbed or from lucky scythe crits mean that you get to choose how you die and have nothing to fear? Seems like a bit of a stretch to me imo.

Kthulhu wrote:

I AM IMMORTAL!

I HAVE INSIDE ME BLOOD OF KINGS!

This coming from a skull? Where do you even keep your blood?

Can't you see the little incense burner? It seems to be floating in something. That must be the Blood of Kings.

[pres man]

You know, roller-coasters are designed to be safe and accidents and especially fatalities are very rare on them. I guess that is why nobody rides them. Too boring.

[ciretose]

Looking back at the longest running campaign I was in, starting from first to 20th level.

Started at 1st level with a Gnome Rogue, Human Monk, Human Ranger and a Human Bard in a Forgotten Realms Homebrew. The Human ranger died, the bard became the GM when the GM wanted to play. The Rogue and the Monk died many times, but never before they could be brought back (The monk was resurrected as a half-elf).

A druid and cleric were added, around 3rd level, the GM became a wizard, another Wizard was added, they died lots but never when they couldn't be brought back. The Ranger became a fighter and the druid went away.

We ran away on occasion before we could raise dead. This is why all of us but the ranger lived through low levels (He died holding back an escape, in part because he was ready to play something else). We rarely ran away after we could raise dead, with the exception of the cleric who we needed to live at all costs to raise us.

At the end, we had two of the 4 original make it to the "end".

The last AP I ran also had two of the originals 6 at the end, but most of that was players wanting to play new characters along the way. The players were very cautious until they reached the level where they could raise dead (not to mention being 6 in a 4 player AP...), and then the deaths started to kick up when death stopped being a problem.

[Kthulhu]

pres man wrote:

You know, roller-coasters are designed to be safe and accidents and especially fatalities are very rare on them. I guess that is why nobody rides them. Too boring.

The thing is, playing an RPG isn't like riding a roller coaster. It's more like watching a video from the POV of someone that rode a roller coaster.

Let's face it, the most danger that most of us are in during a typical RPG session is burning the roof of our mouth with pizza or stepping on a d4 while not wearing a shoe.

[shallowsoul]

pres man wrote:

shallowsoul wrote:

pres man wrote:

Vaziir Jivaan wrote:

I roll everything in front of my players when it comes to combat related functions, and my players love the transparency. They like knowing that they're surviving on their own ability coupled with luck and that they aren't fated to the whimsy of the DM.

I am also someone that rolls everything in the open. Even with that, I as the GM know, that there are times characters are saved due to my whims. A character gets knocked out and I don't hit them with a finishing blow, but instead move on to another character that is still up, they just got saved by my whim.

The idea is for players to "believe" their characters are surviving due to their own abilities and luck. If that is the truth or not, is largely irrelevant, merely if they believe it is true.

Well when someone doesn't like a default game where they could die by the dice and they don't expect to play in that kind of game then there is no danger to believe in.

pres man wrote:

"Losing" can still be:

Getting knocked unconscious.

Getting captured.

Getting robbed.

Getting all your valuables destroyed (Holy crap a rust monster, run!).

Failing to save the hostages.

Failing to stop the BBEG from taking over the world.

Failing to destroy the ring.

...

Let me go through your list here.

Unconscious: Not sure how you lose here unless you never wake up which means death essentially.

Captured: Need a little more to go on here. Captured as in forever or just a minor inconvenience? Usually you have fun trying to escape.

Robbed: If it's money then you can get that back.

Losing all your valuables: A good many players would just Rage quit and see this as worse than death.

Failing to save the hostages: "My character sheds a tear for those lost." Well on to the next task.

Failing to stop the BBEG: You just regroup and try again until you succeed?

Failing to destroy the ring: See above.