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.
If you aren't going to use the result of the dice, why bother to call for a roll at all? Coup de grace is a choice a DM can make for a monster/NPC, though even then a good DM in my opinion should take into account the personality of the monster or NPC and play them in character rather than make a decision based on the result of the actions. An NPC with a grudge against a specific PC who has evaded them before might take the time to be sure they are fully dead, for example, while an animal needing food might start dragging away the PC from the fight to feed in a safe place without taking the time or risk to kill the PC fully.
In the other examples, if you didn't want there to be a chance of someone stumbling into a trap, or succumbing to poison, why even have it there? Just decide from the beginning that there is no poison or trap and don't waste a die roll on something inevitable. I have played and run FATE, specifically the Dresden Files RPG, and when running a story game like FATE I always think of two quotes from the Dresden Files RPG book
In this game, you use the dice quite a bit to figure out what happens as you play. Whenever there’s uncertainty regarding an outcome, you don’t just make up what happens—you use the dice to bring that element of chance to how things are going to turn out. The dice allow for unexpected successes and interesting failures.
For most things they do, there’s no real need for rules. Characters can stand, walk, talk, and otherwise do normal things without needing to roll dice. They can even take actions that use their skills, like driving to work, without worrying about the dice. The dice only come out when there is an interesting challenge with meaningful consequences.
Bold is mine, the book itself was "highlighted" where I bolded. That bit always stuck with me during the game, and if you are running Pathfinder as a story game I think it applies equally as well here. If you don't want there to be meaningful consequences, why use the dice at all? As you put it, just decide that the trap isn't there, that the monster doesn't attack the PC, that the poison doesn't exist. It's not a style of play I would like, but there's nothing wrong with running a story-style game where consequences are determined by the needs of the plot over the dice.
You can also split the difference with house rules. Something like Raising the Stakes, or Hero Points/Action Points, death flags, or lifting mechanics like Conceding and being Taken Out fully from FATE. Stuff that still lets you make dice rolls meaningful, but gives the PCs even more options for improving the odds in situations they find dramatic. I just think that if you have a set outcome in mind before rolling a die it's hard to see the die roll as anything but a waste of time. If there's no consequence for failing don't put in a chance to fail to begin with.
| 4 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.
wha? What's going on? I was about to make breakfast when I saw a funky light....
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
People should not tell stories in a way I do not like. The nerve of those people.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
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?
That's not how that works.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.
I think it is safe to say it is factually accurate.
If you don't understand why Wash died, you are a worse Sci Fi writer than Joss Whedon.
If you are very upset Wash died, Joss Whedon did an amazing job as a writer because...um.
Wash never actually existed.
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.
not necessarily. The genre existed long before him and will continue to do so after he is gone. I'm sure there is at least one person who didn't drink the whedonade that can become or already is a successful individual in the field of science fiction.
Wash never actually existed.
I think this highlights a particular difference between us, having to do with the multiverse theory and not at all on topic. Just had to share my amusement.
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?
That's not how that works.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.
I think it is safe to say it is factually accurate.
If you don't understand why Wash died, you are a worse Sci Fi writer than Joss Whedon.
If you are very upset Wash died, Joss Whedon did an amazing job as a writer because...um.
Wash never actually existed.
I'm going with NOPE NOPE NOPE NOPE NOPE NOPE NOPE NOPE NOPE NOPE NOPE NOPE NOPE NOPE NOPE NOPE NOPE NOPE NOPE NOPE NOPE on this one.
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?Same reason you don't get heavily attached to the horror movie victims.
Horror movies you might be right (though in some horror stories that aren't just "everyone is a cliche and dies" the only way it can affect you is because you have a connection to the characters when things go wrong for them) but there are loads of stories where you are expected to have a connection to characters and they still die. A Song of Ice and Fire (and the Game of Thrones TV series) for example is a tale where you get attached to characters but they don't have plot armor because of it. The Dark Tower series is another series (though written by Stephen King I always considered it more fantasy than horror) where you get attached to characters and bad things happen to them (The Gunslinger had that very chilling sacrifice scene).
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
That's not how that works.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.
I think it is safe to say it is factually accurate.
If you don't understand why Wash died, you are a worse Sci Fi writer than Joss Whedon.
If you are very upset Wash died, Joss Whedon did an amazing job as a writer because...um.
Wash never actually existed.
Alternatively, I just don't watch anything made by Whedon or care for him.(I honestly don't know who Wash is because I don't.)
Regardless, stating that you disagree with something doesn't make you a worse writer than someone.
|
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?Same reason you don't get heavily attached to the horror movie victims.Horror movies you might be right (though in some horror stories that aren't just "everyone is a cliche and dies" the only way it can affect you is because you have a connection to the characters when things go wrong for them) but there are loads of stories where you are expected to have a connection to characters and they still die. A Song of Ice and Fire (and the Game of Thrones TV series) for example is a tale where you get attached to characters but they don't have plot armor because of it. The Dark Tower series is another series (though written by Stephen King I always considered it more fantasy than horror) where you get attached to characters and bad things happen to them (The Gunslinger had that very chilling sacrifice scene).
Exactly!
I remember when Sturm died in the second book of the Dragonlance Chronicles "Dragons of Winter Twilight". I really really liked Sturm in the first book and I was hoping there would have been more out of that character but he did die and I was still okay with that.
Keeping characters alive just so the next book can come out is something I get tired of. I don't know how many times I wanted Artemis Entreri to kill Drizzt.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
An NPC with a grudge against a specific PC who has evaded them before might take the time to be sure they are fully dead, for example,
An established antagonist to a specific PC taking an opportunity to kill them isn't meaningless and random. In that case, the death of the character is tied into the larger story. That's not the same as nameless monster #18 deciding to kill the PC.
In the other examples, if you didn't want there to be a chance of someone stumbling into a trap, or succumbing to poison, why even have it there?
Because you don't know the circumstances that will trigger the trap/poison until it happens? You put the trap there. But what you didn't expect was that when the party reached that area, the rogue would already be down Con due to drain and that the cleric would have ran out of restorations. Rather than kill the character, you just change your plans.
I know when I DM I change my plans on the fly all the time to fit the needs of the story, not just to avoid accidentally killing a character. For example, the party tries to disguise and bluff themselves past the guards, instead of fighting them, so I have to change from what I expected. Not only do I not consider this a bad thing, I think it's one of the strengths of tabletop games.
|
|
If it all depends on how a character dies. If a character dies because the player made a poor decision even after a warning from the DM. Or refuses to listen to any of the players advice and charges ahead. Or a dumb death then imo a player cannot and should not complain. If as a DM I warn you that in the next room the odds are going to overwhelm the player and the player charges in anyway. Well the characters death is on him.
If the DM either targets a player without a good reason. And no "because I'm the DM" is not a good reason to kill off characters. Or goes out of his way to either make a encounter too difficult. Makes it impossible for a player to survive no matter how good the roll on the dice are. If a player stays behind to save the party it's a heroic death. If the player arrives at a bridge. It suddenly collapses behind the player. When a player made sure it was solid. Traps a pc in a room with no exit then imo it's a dick DM move. Or allows a player to make a different concept than a core race. I'm going to question the DM on such a character death. Even if it's not my character.
A good example is a player with Leadership who kept sending his Sorceress cohort into situations she had no place being in. Without even casting any protective spells. Well none of us at the table questioned the DM decision to bump off the cohort. The DM gave the player plenty of chances. Not only that we raised the cohort with the player pretty much told if he keeps making the same poor decisions he is paying out of his own pocket ot bring her back next time. Now if the DM went out of his way to target the cohort even at the expense of other characters then yes I would question the DM as to why his enemies ignore the Cavalier in full plate at the table and making a straight line for the Sorceress.
Still waiting for someone to define what makes a death 'arbitrary'
|
|
No, it's not. It's a perfect example of a story where you just stop caring.
I have to agree. Up until the third book the character deaths enhanced the story. Having read book four a few months back. It feels like Martin has no clue what to do with certain characters and is killing them off just for the sake of not knowing what to do with them.
|
|
not necessarily. The genre existed long before him and will continue to do so after he is gone. I'm sure there is at least one person who didn't drink the whedonade that can become or already is a successful individual in the field of science fiction.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.
I'm going more with the people who don't think Wash's death enhanced the movie don't understand how narrative structure works, and the fact that they are really, really upset about it shows how well done it was.
As he said "Dramatically, the more I worked on [the screenplay], the more it became clear that in order to make people feel that this was real, a certain shocking thing is going to have to happen."
It worked. People were shocked and angry and afraid. Wash completed his arc by landing. The show was cancelled, and suddenly "If they can kill Wash...who else will he kill..."
If the trap can kill 'X'...no one is safe...
A Song of Ice and Fire (and the Game of Thrones TV series) for example is a tale where you get attached to characters but they don't have plot armor because of it.No, it's not. It's a perfect example of a story where you just stop caring.
Well, we've swung around to personal preference here, so I won't disagree with you. I will say that you are wrong at least in regards to me, it is not at all a story where I stop caring. That's the thing that annoys me about conversations like this, when someone makes a blanket assumption about what others feel or do and proceeds to tell them how they feel or react to something (which I did myself by naming Game of Thrones as a tale where you get attached to characters, sorry about that I should have phrased it differently).
I still get attached to characters when they have a chance of death, even a chance of sudden unexpected death, both in gaming and in other media. Shallowsoul apparently does too. If other people don't, that's awesome for them but that doesn't make their assumptions about what I and others can and can't feel about our characters right, and it is annoying to see those wrong assumptions stated as fact.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
When your character dies it is important to the plot, when my character dies it is arbitrary and unfair.
|
|
Still waiting for someone to define what makes a death 'arbitrary'Wash's death was. The entire reason was 'I need to kill a main character' and Wash just happened to be the choice.
I need to kill a main character who has completed their story arc.
Wash just saved everyone by heroically landing Firefly, which was now more or less wreck for the duration. Pilot services no longer required...
|
|
Every group is different. There is no wrong way if the group is happy.
If you don't like character death in your game, great. I don't like plot armor in mine.
Several of the people I game with come over to hang out in addition. Sometimes we play video games.
Someone brought Diablo 3, because it was 4 player. It was ok.
Then we found hardcore mode. And stuff got real. No more half ass side strategy and side chat.
You die and you are dead.
We noticed the same thing at the table. GM who won't kill anyone runs, people aren't so into it. When someone is at risk, suddenly everyone is standing up and trying to find a solution.
If that isn't how you want to play, great. Be happy.
But my group thinks it is awesome that if you aren't careful, you die.
|
|
OTOH, no characters "just happen" to die in fiction. It may look like it, but any decent writer is doing it for effect. For a purpose.
Saying characters don't have plot armor in SoIaF is silly. I really doubt when Martin is writing a potentially dangerous scene, he rolls dice to see which major characters survive. He's intentionally killing off characters he wanted you to be attached to.Making a direct comparison between that and arbitrary deaths in game is silly, because those deaths aren't the same. Even if they might look that way in world. They're completely different in a meta-game sense.
What I am arguing is that death is never arbitrary if people care about the character who died.
It isn't the manner of death, it is the loss of that character that gives it meaning.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
An NPC with a grudge against a specific PC who has evaded them before might take the time to be sure they are fully dead, for example,An established antagonist to a specific PC taking an opportunity to kill them isn't meaningless and random. In that case, the death of the character is tied into the larger story. That's not the same as nameless monster #18 deciding to kill the PC.
Then we are just quibbling over what your opinion is on meaningless and random, which is fine since we should have different opinions on things but doesn't actually provide any benefit. I think "Rocks fall from nowhere, you die no save" is meaningless and random. I don't think "the bandits threatening this region strike from ambush, y'all had a few unlucky rolls so they get surprise and ouch, that looks like a crit with a bow" or "you enter the heavily trapped and ancient crypt, which has held out against intruders for decades without giving up it's treasures, ouch you nat 1'd a save vs a trap when you were already weakened by fighting, sorry" are meaningless and random, while you seem to feel they are. It's all a manner of personal preference here so as long as you don't make assumptions about my ability to feel for characters in games I prefer and I don't make assumptions about you for games you prefer there is no reason for us to have any disagreement. We simply like different things, you don't like what I like and I don't like what you like and that's ok!
In the other examples, if you didn't want there to be a chance of someone stumbling into a trap, or succumbing to poison, why even have it there?Because you don't know the circumstances that will trigger the trap/poison until it happens? You put the trap there. But what you didn't expect was that when the party reached that area, the rogue would already be down Con due to drain and that the cleric would have ran out of restorations. Rather than kill the character, you just change your plans.
I know when I DM I change my plans on the fly all the time to fit the needs of the story, not just to avoid accidentally killing a character. For example, the party tries to disguise and bluff themselves past the guards, instead of fighting them, so I have to change from what I expected. Not only do I not consider this a bad thing, I think it's one of the strengths of tabletop games.
One thing I have to disagree with: fudging dice rolls =/= reacting to what the party does. Every DM should react to what the party does, that's why there is a DM in the first place to play out the way the world and its inhabitants reacts when the party acts on it. Dice, in my opinion and in games I run, fulfill the role of friction and chance when there is some sort of conflict between what one person in the world wants to do any what another does.
The party deciding to bluff their way past guards instead of kicking the door down is just an example of how the game is played, there's no one right choice. The result of the party's decision though isn't fiated by the DM, it's determined by their own skill, the skill of their opponents, and chance, i.e. an opposed die roll. Fudging is independent of allowing the players choice. You can rail the players through an adventure in one course by fudging so that nothing they does works except the course you choose, or you can let them choose whatever course they want and fudge things to make things easier (or harder) for them along that course. Fudging dice rolls is not reacting to PCs or giving them choices, it is just imposing your vision of the outcome on whatever choice or conflict occurs.
It isn't wrong to do so, if your game is run that way, and it isn't wrong to run the dice as they fall if your game is run that way, just don't imply that DMs that don't fudge dice don't react to their PCs choices and it's all good.
What I am arguing is that death is never arbitrary if people care about the character who died.
It isn't the manner of death, it is the loss of that character that gives it meaning.
Probably safe to say, that different from a movie/novel, in a table top game killing off someone else's character because they care could get a much different reaction.
|
|
Probably safe to say, that different from a movie/novel, in a table top game killing off someone else's character because they care could get a much different reaction.What I am arguing is that death is never arbitrary if people care about the character who died.
It isn't the manner of death, it is the loss of that character that gives it meaning.
My GM has never killed off my characters. The dice and poor choices have on occasion, but never the GM.
My GM has never killed off my characters. The dice and poor choices have on occasion, but never the GM.
Mine would. They tend to control what monsters are behind the door and what challenges I face. When you fight a DR 20 creature at level five or incorporeal without magic weapons, it tends to be him. Can't blame that on the dice. Its also his choice as t how many save or dies are used and whether foes coup de' grace.
Edit: That isn't to say it can't be your fault or luck, but that the GM isn't entirely void of consequence and has at least some control over your fate in those circumstances. Again, personally I don't do CdG on players and I don't like save or dies from anyone.
|
|
My GM has never killed off my characters. The dice and poor choices have on occasion, but never the GM.Mine would. They tend to control what monsters are behind the door and what challenges I face. When you fight a DR 20 creature at level five or incorporeal without magic weapons, it tends to be him. Can't blame that on the dice. Its also his choice as t how many save or dies are used and whether foes coup de' grace.
Edit: That isn't to say it can't be your fault or luck, but that the GM isn't entirely void of consequence and has at least some control over your fate in those circumstances. Again, personally I don't do CdG on players and I don't like save or dies from anyone.
Your GM runs the monsters. You generally decide where, when and how you will fight the monsters.
Or is the GM never supposed to give you a challenge that might *gasp* kill your character?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
My GM has never killed off my characters. The dice and poor choices have on occasion, but never the GM.Mine would. They tend to control what monsters are behind the door and what challenges I face. When you fight a DR 20 creature at level five or incorporeal without magic weapons, it tends to be him. Can't blame that on the dice. Its also his choice as t how many save or dies are used and whether foes coup de' grace.
Edit: That isn't to say it can't be your fault or luck, but that the GM isn't entirely void of consequence and has at least some control over your fate in those circumstances. Again, personally I don't do CdG on players and I don't like save or dies from anyone.
If a GM puts you up against something not level appropriate with no chance to escape then I agree the GM is partly to blame, but most GM's done use DR 20 monsters against level 5 parties. I have never complained about a character dying but DR 20 vs level 5 would get him the "WTF" stare.
edit:Was there no knowledge check made to let you know the monster had DR 20, or anything else that might make fighting it a bad idea?
|
|
Every time I have a character die I get upset but I get upset in a good way.
So do I think a whole bunch of players. As well as some who take it too far and become upset as well. It's impossible to say for sure which sides happens more often.
Your GM runs the monsters. You generally decide where, when and how you will fight the monsters.
True. In the end sometimes bad dice rolls and poor decisions take on the part of a player.
Or is the GM never supposed to give you a challenge that might *gasp* kill your character?
No I don't want my DM to give me plot armor. I also don't want the DM stacking the odds against me because it might hurt his special snowflake of a NPC. Or that a player or the entire party decide not to allow themselves to be railroaded by the DM then get punished because of it. Or because the DM is one of those who takes pleasure in player deaths and TPKs.
More often than not it's the players fault. Sometimes very rarely the DM can force the issue as well.
Because it's apropos:
George Martin and Joss Whedon walk into a bar.
...Everyone you've ever loved dies.
LOL.
With George Martin getting angry and upset when you ask when the next loved one will die.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
I am currently playing in a game where the player characters pretty much cannot die. They're all but gods. Actually, they might be gods. It's hard to tell sometimes.
When one 'dies' by the rules, he or she recorporates on his or her home plane. Each character has a plane they rule (more or less).
However, the game maintains an atmosphere of desperation and fighting against all odds because the characters can lose things they care about. They are all leaders of their realms and portfolios and something terrible threatens to destroy all of existence.
There's also the political game. The characters, as powerful figures in the world, must carefully balance their allies and enemies. At this stage, we're reaching a place where the laws of the universe prevent godly powers from interacting directly with mortals and must do so through followers. While we still fight enemies on a mythic scale, we must support our people through means other than teleporting in and nuking the problems.
We can't die. And we still fear losing it all.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That's not how that works.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.
I think it is safe to say it is factually accurate.
If you don't understand why Wash died, you are a worse Sci Fi writer than Joss Whedon.
If you are very upset Wash died, Joss Whedon did an amazing job as a writer because...um.
Wash never actually existed.
Alternatively, I just don't watch anything made by Whedon or care for him.(I honestly don't know who Wash is because I don't.)
Regardless, stating that you disagree with something doesn't make you a worse writer than someone.
greetings, new best friend.
|
|
I am currently playing in a game where the player characters pretty much cannot die. They're all but gods. Actually, they might be gods. It's hard to tell sometimes.
When one 'dies' by the rules, he or she recorporates on his or her home plane. Each character has a plane they rule (more or less).
However, the game maintains an atmosphere of desperation and fighting against all odds because the characters can lose things they care about. They are all leaders of their realms and portfolios and something terrible threatens to destroy all of existence.
There's also the political game. The characters, as powerful figures in the world, must carefully balance their allies and enemies. At this stage, we're reaching a place where the laws of the universe prevent godly powers from interacting directly with mortals and must do so through followers. While we still fight enemies on a mythic scale, we must support our people through means other than teleporting in and nuking the problems.
We can't die. And we still fear losing it all.
The only thing my players fear losing are magic items.
If there is no death then there is no interest with my group.
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.
I didn't uproar as much as cheer....
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
edit:Was there no knowledge check made to let you know the monster had DR 20, or anything else that might make fighting it a bad idea?
Long story, we already knew its DR because it was being played by a player. I liked the DM's roleplaying, but our encounters were hit or miss. CR appropriate often enough, but regen/DR/incorporeal/immunities came up because he loved his template undead and constructs.
greetings, new best friend.
Makes me smile.
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.
A death being upsetting doesn't make it a bad death. It was, however, arbitrary, since he only died to set the tone for the climax. Arbitrary deaths are okay in movies, seeing as there're no dice being rolled.
A Song of Ice and Fire (and the Game of Thrones TV series) for example is a tale where you get attached to characters but they don't have plot armor because of it.No, it's not. It's a perfect example of a story where you just stop caring.
And yet Game of Thrones retains a massive fan following.
Gee, almost as if it's a matter of opinion.
Also almost as if comparing deaths in a movie to deaths in a game is really, really pointless and liable to start off-topic arguments.
By the way, this is off-topic, but am I the only one who gets confused by TOZ's and ciretose's avatars? I keep getting them mixed up.
By the way, this is off-topic, but am I the only one who gets confused by TOZ's and ciretose's avatars? I keep getting them mixed up.
Good question. I'm the guy in the blue hood around here, why aren't you getting me mixed up with TOZ, eh?
Well, it's probably because TOZ's avatar is of Cayden Cailean, and ciretose's is of a drunk guy. But it's weird how I can't keep them straight--they're hardly that similar otherwise.
|
|
A death being upsetting doesn't make it a bad death. It was, however, arbitrary, since he only died to set the tone for the climax. Arbitrary deaths are okay in movies, seeing as there're no dice being rolled.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.
Uh...that it did something means it wasn't arbitrary.\
Arbitrary mean "based on random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system."