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


Gamer Life General Discussion

301 to 350 of 538 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | next > last >>

Immortal Greed wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Immortal Greed wrote:

On threat and dead characters, if you didn't want your character to be at risk, don't bring them to the table of adventure. You can also retire a char that gets some successes, wealth and station if you don't want them to die (possibly permanently). Then take a new one into the high danger stuff you aren't invested in. Sometimes I wish I'd done this, but I don't mind char death anymore because I came to realise:

Because generally if I'm invested in a character it's not because of "successes, wealth and station", but relationships and plotlines within the game. Those are cut off just as much by retirement as by death.

Nor would it make much sense in the middle of a long-term quest. "Guys, I know we're trying to <stop the apocalypse/find the cure for your mother/rescue the dragon/whatever>, but I've made some money and I think I'm going to settle down now. Hope it works out for you."

This also suggests a different fundamental difference in gamestyle. If you're playing a more serial game where the main question is which dungeon to raid today, it's easy to retire (or die) and bring in another character. No big deal. In other games, the characters are actually tied into plotlines and it's not quite so easy to swap them out for another.
Like someone mentioned above about APs and some of their subsystems, except it's true even without mechanics. Even if there isn't a Relationship tracking subsystems, the NPCs still won't know your new PC from Adam.

Yeah, although not every quest has to be about the apocalypse. I try not to run them too often.

If they clear a region of threats and dangers, it can be a good time to retire a character and take on a new one.

You'll note I mentioned several potential quests, not just the apocalypse.

And sure, if their main quest is done it's a good time to retire. It's probably also a good time to start a new campaign.

I just don't get the idea of "I like this character so much I don't want to risk not being able to play him, so I'll stop playing him." Sort of defeats the purpose, doesn't it?

Still "clearing a region of threats and dangers" seems like a boring game to me. Conjures up images of just going from one lair to another with no real motivation. Ahh, different strokes. There's probably a way to make it fun. But it points back at the other fundamental difference in gamestyle I mentioned.


shallowsoul wrote:

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 everyone must accept death in the end.


Immortal Greed wrote:
thejeff wrote:
ciretose wrote:

Character death in the games I play in is a big deal, particularly at lower levels where it is permanent. When a character dies in the game worlds we generally play, they die in the canon of the game. The death is remembered and where possible incorporated.

That character lived, them dying is part of the story going forward. Revenge is a wonderful quest motivational tool.

Yeah we definitely need to get revenge on that trap in the side quest. You know the one that we killed everyone in before we went back to town and found a new character to join us.

Revenge works when the circumstances of the death are significant, even if it was just luck or something. If it's a random encounter along the way or a trap while raiding an abandoned tomb, it's hard to get much out of it.

Take out the trap. Find the trapmaker, kill their family with the trap. Sit them down and lecture them on it being their fault. Evil would kill you and your family being no excuse.

Good side-quest.

We were on a side quest. We were going to wipe out the kobolds in that lair anyway. Sure we can have a little extra rage while we finish the fight, but that's not much.

Spoiler:
Sorry Kobold Cleaver. These were bad kobolds. Doing bad unkoboldy things.
Or like most of the traps in D&D, it was set up centuries ago for a good purpose, but now we have to break into the tomb to get the artifact or whatever.

Again, it's possible the trapmaker is still around and not actually in the next room already on the list to be killed. Or that there's a whole plotline that can be attached to the random encounter that kills someone. Harder if it's an unintelligent monster, but still possible I suppose.

OTOH, there's all the plots attached to the dead character.


knightnday wrote:

The character's death is as meaningless or arbitrary as you and your table make it. Yes, you can handwave and/or fudge die rolls to make the bad thing go away. You can also weave whatever is going on into the story and maybe your death inspires better things. Or whatever. There are a lot of things that can come out of this.

I keep seeing "arbitrary" and "meaningless" used and it seems to be "this is something I don't like or want to happen, so it is bad and I will call it these names."

Then suggest a better term if you don't like it. I think it's pretty clear the distinction that's being made. I'd be happy with a less derogatory term if that would kill some of the argument.

I can't think of one offhand though.


thejeff wrote:
knightnday wrote:

The character's death is as meaningless or arbitrary as you and your table make it. Yes, you can handwave and/or fudge die rolls to make the bad thing go away. You can also weave whatever is going on into the story and maybe your death inspires better things. Or whatever. There are a lot of things that can come out of this.

I keep seeing "arbitrary" and "meaningless" used and it seems to be "this is something I don't like or want to happen, so it is bad and I will call it these names."

Then suggest a better term if you don't like it. I think it's pretty clear the distinction that's being made. I'd be happy with a less derogatory term if that would kill some of the argument.

I can't think of one offhand though.

I elaborated on that at the top of this page, with the request for examples and more descriptive language. Or just say you don't like it, because that is a valid point too. But arbitrary and meaningless seem to mean different things to different people, so the language is getting in the way.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
knightnday wrote:
MrSin wrote:
knightnday wrote:
I keep seeing "arbitrary" and "meaningless" used and it seems to be "this is something I don't like or want to happen, so it is bad and I will call it these names."
Telling people they're having bad wrong fun for not doing what you do? Probably could've phrased that in a way your suggesting something, rather than making it look like everyone else is an idiot.

I probably could have. Then again, we probably could have phrased a great deal better in this thread and it would have been about six posts. Some people are not happy with certain kinds of death. When people have asked "What makes a death arbitrary?" the topic is dodged or avoided.

If you don't like a certain style of play, a certain type of being killed, specify that instead of using meaningless or arbitrary. They apparently don't mean the same thing to each of us ya know? If my comments indicate that I believe someone is an idiot for using these terms then I apologize, as that isn't my intention. My intention is to say "Stop using these terms to hide the meaning of your words. Say what you mean. You don't like this form of dying compared to other forms of dying because it isn't heroic enough or doesn't tell the story you'd like or rely on dumb luck or don't involve the GM fudging things so that I am wounded instead of killed or ...."

You know, use actual examples and actual words instead of place holders.

Because it seems clear to us and using paragraphs in the middle of discussions when single words will do is generally a better form of communicating? Because any example given will be nitpicked and twisted until it doesn't look at all like it was intended.

I think I've been fairly clear. I like low-lethality games. I can tolerate very occasional arbitrary* death. Deaths that provide a good sense of closure don't bother me as much. That could be a heroic sacrifice, some kind of climatic battle with a major foe, even a stupid death if it fits the character well enough. As a GM, I'll assume that particularly stupid player actions are a request for this kind of death, though I may ask to make sure it wasn't a player misunderstanding the situation. Anything that feels like it's wrapping up a character's story rather than chopping it off in the middle. Vague I know, but I hope you get the picture.

Arbitrary is pretty much anything else. From GM overkill to most uses of lethal traps to low-level crit-fishing enemies to some runs of bad luck to random mooks or any number of other things.

Again, total immunity isn't the issue. Rare arbitrary deaths are tolerable. (Dramatically appropriate deaths are rare almost by definition.) Too much and it stops being worth investing in the characters.

All of that in my opinion. I'm not saying everyone should play that way or that my way is better. Just that I've found it tends to produce deeper more interesting characters and more interesting games if survival isn't the biggest concern.

Edit: I'm still not going to say all of that in every post. Until someone comes up with a better one-word name for it, refer to this when I say "arbitrary". I'll even put it in quotes.


thejeff wrote:

Because it seems clear to us and using paragraphs in the middle of discussions when single words will do is generally a better form of communicating? Because any example given will be nitpicked and twisted until it doesn't look at all like it was intended.

I think I've been fairly clear. I like low-lethality games. I can tolerate very occasional arbitrary* death. Deaths that provide a good sense of closure don't bother me as much. That could be a heroic sacrifice, some kind of climatic battle with a major foe, even a stupid death if it fits the character well enough. As a GM, I'll assume that particularly stupid player actions are a request for this kind of death, though I may ask to make sure it wasn't a player misunderstanding the situation. Anything that feels like it's wrapping up a character's story rather than chopping it off in the middle. Vague I know, but I hope you get the picture.

Arbitrary is pretty much anything else. From GM overkill to most uses of lethal traps to low-level crit-fishing enemies to some runs of bad luck to random mooks or any number of other things.

Again, total immunity isn't the issue. Rare arbitrary deaths are tolerable. (Dramatically appropriate deaths are rare almost by definition.) Too much and it stops being worth investing in the characters.

All of that in my opinion. I'm not saying everyone should play that way or that my way is better. Just that I've found it tends to produce deeper more interesting characters and more interesting games if survival isn't the biggest concern.

Edit: I'm still not going to say all of that in every post. Until someone comes up with a better one-word name for it, refer to this when I say "arbitrary". I'll even put it in quotes.

Nor would I expect you to go into this level of detail in every post. That said, I do appreciate the explanation of what you think and the examples; it helps to understand what you are saying in earlier and later posts.

I can agree with the majority of what you have said here. In my own games, if/when players move to do something really stupid I tend to ask "Are you sure?" Usually that gives them pause and they give the matter a bit more thought. I've had a few follow through and they have nodded afterwards and admitted that they should have listed to the warning.

I'm not much for bolts from the blue or cows falling from orbit to kill players; I find that sort of thing incredibly arbitrary and a sign that maybe the GM should check their sugar levels and take a break for a while -- they may be taking out their ire on the players. I try to guide the players with suggestions from the sidelines if they seem stuck on tactics and have even allowed them to backtrack if things look like they are getting totally out of hand.

We try as a table to make our actions in character and meaningful -- less OOC banter about the 37 things you might do, as I've seen some players do to feel out the situation (ala the movie Next, if you will) -- so that the players have to take responsibility for the good or bad of what they do. Make your actions count, roll the dice, and let's see what happens.

Again, thank you for the breakdown, I find it very helpful. :)


4 people marked this as a favorite.

I like to project the image that I'm trying to kill my players without actually trying to kill them. Does this make me a bad DM?

(Just a joke. I know I'm awesome!)


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I try to project the image of a Dungeon Master who knows what he's doing, without actually having any idea, so I use alot of acronyms like PRD, RAW, and such, it isn't working as well as I'd hoped it would...


MrSin wrote:
shallowsoul wrote:
MrSin wrote:
shallowsoul wrote:
All I can say is if you are going to stick to your highly specialized style of gaming then expect the groups you find to play in to be few and far between.
Same to you aye?
I don't have that problem because I more or less stick with the default.
Mmhmm, or what you think is the default, or 'dominant' as jeff put it.

the Chinese have a lot of hells, gamers have a lot of defaults.

Digital Products Assistant

Removed quite a few posts. Leave the personal insults/hostility out of the conversation.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Lambertz <---- You deserve a cookie, NO, you deserve many cookies.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

This is why I always like dropping in the name of the person who will pick up my torch should my character die in the backstory. Good times. (I have no fear of death for my characters, just gives me a chance to try another concept. If it was a concept I didn't fully flesh out that died, I can always recycle it.)

I know from a mechanical standpoint, as a GM, I find myself wondering if I want to deal with a dead character. In Pathfinder, death can feel like a punishment because the way the game is designed. Someone not playing is someone not as engaged as they were. I sometimes do flinch if a character would have died right out of the gate with a couple of hours roleplaying afterwards.

At the same time, I do like character death as it prevents a certain sense of absurdity that can come about. I wish their were some mechanical benefits to a death that would make it feel like less of a punishment. (For instance in FATE, if you concede, you get FATE points which lets you be more awesome in the next encounter, despite losing in the previous.)


3 people marked this as a favorite.
shallowsoul wrote:

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.

Hi all, I'm the guy that is being mentioned here. Sorry folks, I didn't see this thread until today and by then it was already on page 6 and I've had to work, so it has taken me a bit to catch-up. I did skim some of the longer posts, as they seemed to be just more of the same, so I apologize if I missed some key point in them.

I'm going to put a lot of the background info in spoilers if people care to know what lead up to this. One thing I will say before getting too deep into the details is that the original issue wasn't about players but about GMs. The way shallowsoul has worded things at the start of this thread seems to be applying the discussion to players, and that is a distortion of what was being discussed on this particular issue.

Basis of other thread:
The other thread dealt with players that wanted to play non-standard races (for the campaign) and challenging the GM to allow it (anything from asking and when told no saying okay to demanding the GM respect their wish or they will sleep with the GM's grandma).

About GMs and PCs:
I said that GMs run the setting and the players run the PCs, and if a GM says they don't want to allow a special character because it causes them to run something they don't want, then they are mixing the language up. A GM came back and said that they have to be intimately involved in the character design and development so it was at least part way that they were "running" the character. They said this was necessary because they tailored the campaign around the (GM influenced) details and motivations of the characters. So it was a big hassle to include special characters.

I suggested that if I was a player, I could handle my character's own motivations and the GM's time would be better spent on developing an interesting campaign. This went off on its own tangent. Basically I must only be playing shallow characters, blah blah.

Regarding PC death and traps:
So as has been suggested earlier, there was later some discussion of trivial PC death and how it can devalue the investment in characters. Personally, I'm okay with the dice falling how they will, though I do think that encounters/challenges can be designed poorly and that can be frustrating.

What I found funny:
Not this isn't FUNNY, not drop on the ground rolling, so if that is what you are expecting, sadly you will be disappointed.

But what I found funny was GMs who say they MUST be involved with the character design because they had to build their campaign around those details (they okayed)also said they like to have deadly traps and such in order to keep the game dangerous. I said that I find such a dichotomy humorous because they seemed to working against their own interest in that case.

If they wanted a (potentially) lethal campaign, then they probably shouldn't spend a lot of time designing the campaign around the motivations of specific PCs that are likely to die somewhere along the way. When a specific PC dies, it is very likely that practically all of the details tied to the motivations of that character are now meaningless. Who wants to go kill the step-father of their adventuring buddy after he was squashed by dragon.

So there it is. Now that doesn't really have all that much to do with this actual thread, since the details were morphed (player's perspective vs. originally GM's perspective), but I just wanted to give some background for anyone that was interested, but not up to reading thousands of posts.

Take care.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Guy Kilmore wrote:
This is why I always like dropping in the name of the person who will pick up my torch should my character die in the backstory. Good times. (I have no fear of death for my characters, just gives me a chance to try another concept. If it was a concept I didn't fully flesh out that died, I can always recycle it.)

This is a great idea, and I'm going to utilize it in the next gaming session. It just so happens my paladin ran into a weird wizard during his journey...


I had a player that once wanted to die in the next dungeon, so he could bring in another char. He fell down a pit trap and went to negatives fighting Aztec dire rabbits. The players got to him on -9, and then natural 1 on the heal check.

His next char was great, and a lot of fun was had.

Scarab Sages

I can only speak for myself, but I don't like "arbitrary" deaths in my gaming experience because I get enough of that in real life. When I'm playing a game for fun, I would like my character to reach the end of the story. If she has to die, I hope for it to be a better reason than rolling a 1 on a save, or being killed in a random encounter when there's a heroic quest to complete. If the GM has to fudge to make that happen, I'm okay with that.

We have a house rule that if someone can be healed back to at least one HP within the same round that they died, then they don't really die. They could still die if the roll is bad on the cure spell, but at least there's a chance to survive to the next encounter.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

A game with no risks is boring to me. There's no such thing as an "arbitrary death" in the games I play/run. Death is death. If people can drown in a spoonful of water in real life, then so can fantasy characters.

I just play by the rules the books says to. If a trap does enough damage to kill my character, I shouldn't magically become immune to trap damage all of a sudden.

If a DM didn't mean for a character to die, then they should've prepared the encounter better. We all make mistakes, it's true, but here's a tip: don't throw an encounter at the party that is CR 4+ the party ECL if you don't want someone to die. I've seen this happen; facepalms abound.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

And don't use higher crit weapons than x2. *sniff*


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Sissyl wrote:
And don't use higher crit weapons than x2. *sniff*

Nope, not even a thing. If it's available to the players, then it should be available to the rest of the setting, for the most part. I always tell my DM's to not hold back; if we run into something too tough, then we all learn something from the encounter(DM included).

I've seen too many DM's, whose confidence is shot to pieces by players who question their every action, whine at every inconvenience, and don't appreciate the work that goes into running a game. I've seen too many games crash and burn, because the group threw hissy fits when anything negative happened to their characters at all.

The term "arbitrary death" becomes really, really vague when it comes to a player who is really into their character. I find it incredibly selfish, that a player wants to derail and alter the game world, just so their character can magically not die.

I don't want a DM to handle my character with kid-gloves. I'm not saying my way is "the way," it's just the style of play I prefer.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Josh M. wrote:
I don't want a DM to handle my character with kid-gloves. I'm not saying my way is "the way," it's just the style of play I prefer.

I think the crit thing is more of a low level character concern. If you are throwing orcs with falchions (which were the MM description in 3.5) at a low level party, don't be surprised when the mage gets one-shotted. "Oh, that was just bad luck due to a rare crit." Falchions have increased crit range, they are suppose to crit more often, an experienced GM shouldn't act completely innocent when something like that happens, they should have known it was likely.

Does that mean that falchions shouldn't exist for orcs? No. But they are one of the most expensive weapons in 3.5, why are standard orcs running around with them? Basically a GM should find a reason in game why a group of creatures challenging the party at low levels might not have the best equipment. My orcs tend to be both practical and typically low wealth, thus most are outfitted with shortspears. Shortspears are one-handed weapons so can be wielded both one-handed or two-handed and can be thrown. The fact that they only do 1d6 damage and only have a x2 crit range means that I as the GM don't have to panic if an orc faces a mage at first level. The orc might drop the mage, but isn't likely to take him beyond -9 in one hit. So I have both in game and out of game reasons for wielding such weapons to my monsters.

But when I play, I roll in the open and we play how the dice lie. So I do my "fudging" in the planning stage, not in the game play stage. That is why I said I have a problem with GMs doing poor planning. "Oh that trap that does 20d6 damage killed my level four character? Who could have guessed that might happen?"


1 person marked this as a favorite.
pres man wrote:


But when I play, I roll in the open and we play how the dice lie. So I do my "fudging" in the planning stage, not in the game play stage. That is why I said I have a problem with GMs doing poor planning. "Oh that trap that does 20d6 damage killed my level four character? Who could have guessed that might happen?"

I agree, and I wanted to add to this. Mistakes happen. Often times, I see TPK's come from poor planning, rather than poor player decisions or dice rolls. DM find some awesome monster in a book, wants to throw it at the party, and blammo; it was a little too awesome. That's why I said that really tough encounters are a learning experience for everyone at the table, DM included.

You have a very good point regarding the orcs in the MM. I could see a squad leader/miniboss orc using a falchion, but likely not the rank and file CR 1's. Taking the time to adjust them to using short spears makes good sense.

As the party ECL increases(thus enemy CR), I would go to the orcs using falchions more regularly.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Vivianne Laflamme wrote:
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?

Aww, I'm late to the party.

Anyway. I can't imagine a situation where this would be an even remotely plausible outcome. However, what can happen and that I, as a GM, embrace, is the chance that a few lucky rolls could mean the "death" of the current plot.

Or more exactly, maybe the players have a moment of brilliance, figure out what's going on and manage to solve the plot by bypassing the majority of what I had prepared. Or maybe they end up accidentally killing an important plot NPC before his time ("What do you mean my bi-polar blaster carbine doesn't have a stun setting? Oh. Whoops.")

That's just the PCs being PCs and reacting to that is what GMing is all about.

(It's also a big reason why I don't have a lot of concrete plans for my plots.)


Josh M. wrote:
Sissyl wrote:
And don't use higher crit weapons than x2. *sniff*
Nope, not even a thing. If it's available to the players, then it should be available to the rest of the setting, for the most part. I always tell my DM's to not hold back; if we run into something too tough, then we all learn something from the encounter(DM included).

What I don't like about the crit-fishing builds for NPCs, at least at low levels is that they tend to be all or nothing. It's more of a problem with the 20 x3 versions than the higher chance ones. Great axes are a really bad choice against low-level PCs.

Because they make really swingy encounters. Most likely the monster won't crit and the encounter will be pretty easy. Otherwise, someone will die.

This isn't as much of a problem when a PC uses it, since he'll make enough rolls over the course of a game to average out.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Dodging 18-20 weapons is one thing. Scythes and picks, though? Those are obviously my reward for being such a great game master.


Josh M. wrote:

A game with no risks is boring to me. There's no such thing as an "arbitrary death" in the games I play/run. Death is death. If people can drown in a spoonful of water in real life, then so can fantasy characters.

I just play by the rules the books says to. If a trap does enough damage to kill my character, I shouldn't magically become immune to trap damage all of a sudden.

If a DM didn't mean for a character to die, then they should've prepared the encounter better. We all make mistakes, it's true, but here's a tip: don't throw an encounter at the party that is CR 4+ the party ECL if you don't want someone to die. I've seen this happen; facepalms abound.

Yep, yep and yes.

As a friend has said "people die from falling over". If players don't think there is risk stepping into a trap filled dungeon or monster den, they will soon learn to be more cautious with the next char.

Yes, be very careful about the +4 ECL, and take note of the groups weaknesses and strengths. What is likely to counter them (go easy on that).


Immortal Greed wrote:
Josh M. wrote:

A game with no risks is boring to me. There's no such thing as an "arbitrary death" in the games I play/run. Death is death. If people can drown in a spoonful of water in real life, then so can fantasy characters.

I just play by the rules the books says to. If a trap does enough damage to kill my character, I shouldn't magically become immune to trap damage all of a sudden.

If a DM didn't mean for a character to die, then they should've prepared the encounter better. We all make mistakes, it's true, but here's a tip: don't throw an encounter at the party that is CR 4+ the party ECL if you don't want someone to die. I've seen this happen; facepalms abound.

Yep, yep and yes.

As a friend has said "people die from falling over". If players don't think there is risk stepping into a trap filled dungeon or monster den, they will soon learn to be more cautious with the next char.

Yes, be very careful about the +4 ECL, and take note of the groups weaknesses and strengths. What is likely to counter them (go easy on that).

Absolutely great if you want to play like that.

If you want your characters to be larger than life heroes and not die silly ignominious deaths, that's also great.


Kobold Cleaver wrote:
Dodging 18-20 weapons is one thing. Scythes and picks, though? Those are obviously my reward for being such a great game master.

You can never have enough scythes and picks.

Hmm, I've done scythe traps, now how about some pick traps?

Pressure plate and spring loaded heavy pick to the face. If char is small they are comedically hit by the base holding the pick (ouch). Maybe add some bleed to the pick itself...

If they wrench it free from the trap they will have a bleeding pick. Enjoy the treasure!


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Immortal Greed wrote:
As a friend has said "people die from falling over". If players don't think there is risk stepping into a trap filled dungeon or monster den, they will soon learn to be more cautious with the next char.

Or you'll drive them crazy with paranoia and ruin the game by forcing them to roll search checks constantly.

Or you teach them the best way to handle things is by being ridiculous, by doing things like using mount to search check or releasing 100s of cheaply bought chickens to their doom.

Its weird how those things work out sometimes. Varies from group to group. I've never big on teaching lessons through being punishing myself.


thejeff wrote:
Immortal Greed wrote:
Josh M. wrote:

A game with no risks is boring to me. There's no such thing as an "arbitrary death" in the games I play/run. Death is death. If people can drown in a spoonful of water in real life, then so can fantasy characters.

I just play by the rules the books says to. If a trap does enough damage to kill my character, I shouldn't magically become immune to trap damage all of a sudden.

If a DM didn't mean for a character to die, then they should've prepared the encounter better. We all make mistakes, it's true, but here's a tip: don't throw an encounter at the party that is CR 4+ the party ECL if you don't want someone to die. I've seen this happen; facepalms abound.

Yep, yep and yes.

As a friend has said "people die from falling over". If players don't think there is risk stepping into a trap filled dungeon or monster den, they will soon learn to be more cautious with the next char.

Yes, be very careful about the +4 ECL, and take note of the groups weaknesses and strengths. What is likely to counter them (go easy on that).

Absolutely great if you want to play like that.

If you want your characters to be larger than life heroes and not die silly ignominious deaths, that's also great.

Lol.

A good dungeon should have the risk of silly death and grisly death contained within.

Take Sen's fortress in Dark Souls. You and some of the monsters can be crushed by giant rolling balls (silly death), and you can be guillotined off a walkway and then fall many many tens of feet on to tar covered ground, and then a demon stabs your corpse (just to make sure). That is a grisly death, and the whole fortress is a challenging and thrilling dungeon.

Check those boxes!

Players can groan and then laugh at their failure if they die the silly death, and be shocked and surprised at the grisly death. Entertain those players with the demise of their characters.


A video game, where you can load from the last quicksave if your character dies, is not the same thing as a tabletop game.


Vivianne Laflamme wrote:
A video game, where you can load from the last quicksave if your character dies, is not the same thing as a tabletop game.

Aye, but darksouls is pretty damning though if the internet is to be trusted. I've been told Demon Souls was more fun because it was less punishing, but I haven't played any of the games so I wouldn't know much.

There are a lot of games that are all about dying, like roguelikes, Dwarf Fortress, or I wanna be the guy. Those games aren't for everyone though, and tabletops can be much rougher and have more investment, so not everyone's into it.


I think we are agree. To clarify, my point was that Immortal Greed's appeal to Dark Souls to try to justify arbitrary death in tabletop roleplaying games was misguided. There are a lot of video games that are all about dying. Some of them are a lot of fun! But they are a sufficiently different medium from tabletop roleplaying games that you can't use them as analogies in the way Immortal Greed is.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Immortal Greed wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Immortal Greed wrote:
Josh M. wrote:

A game with no risks is boring to me. There's no such thing as an "arbitrary death" in the games I play/run. Death is death. If people can drown in a spoonful of water in real life, then so can fantasy characters.

I just play by the rules the books says to. If a trap does enough damage to kill my character, I shouldn't magically become immune to trap damage all of a sudden.

If a DM didn't mean for a character to die, then they should've prepared the encounter better. We all make mistakes, it's true, but here's a tip: don't throw an encounter at the party that is CR 4+ the party ECL if you don't want someone to die. I've seen this happen; facepalms abound.

Yep, yep and yes.

As a friend has said "people die from falling over". If players don't think there is risk stepping into a trap filled dungeon or monster den, they will soon learn to be more cautious with the next char.

Yes, be very careful about the +4 ECL, and take note of the groups weaknesses and strengths. What is likely to counter them (go easy on that).

Absolutely great if you want to play like that.

If you want your characters to be larger than life heroes and not die silly ignominious deaths, that's also great.

Lol.

A good dungeon should have the risk of silly death and grisly death contained within.

Take Sen's fortress in Dark Souls. You and some of the monsters can be crushed by giant rolling balls (silly death), and you can be guillotined off a walkway and then fall many many tens of feet on to tar covered ground, and then a demon stabs your corpse (just to make sure). That is a grisly death, and the whole fortress is a challenging and thrilling dungeon.

Check those boxes!

Players can groan and then laugh at their failure if they die the silly death, and be shocked and surprised at the grisly death. Entertain those players with the demise of their characters.

Again that's great if you like that kind of thing.

I can do it once in awhile. Beer and pretzels gaming, as far as I'm concerned. Don't put much thought and no emotional investment into your character. Just a token to move through the dungeon and laugh at the inevitable deaths. It can be fun, but it's not really my thing.

Again, it's not that you think your style of gaming is cool that's the problem. It's the heavy implication my preferences are badwrongfun.
I like complex plots, heavy roleplaying, some moral considerations, not a whole lot of fighting and damn little standard dungeon crawling. From what you describe, I expect my favorite games would have bored you silly.
And that's okay. The hobby's big enough to include both of us and whole lot more besides.


I save time by making a horse do it. It last hour per level and I'm a clear distance away from the problem. Or my army of chickens! The ones that survive are rewarded greatly. Sort of like mini-PCs.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Vivianne Laflamme wrote:
A video game, where you can load from the last quicksave if your character dies, is not the same thing as a tabletop game.

Yes, and the players have a lot more tools and options at their disposal so as to not get killed, compared to a computer game.


Three questions for you Vivianne, if a character were to keep walking into traps when does an "arbitrary death" become a "death due to carelessness"?

As a veteran dm said, "respect the trap". You could respect them instead of calling all dangerous traps dealers of arbitrary death (aren't those two words getting old now?). Do you think traps should be respected and players show caution and planning when progressing through a dungeon?

Lastly, does a multiple trap set-up offend you more (a dungeon that kills your char steadily via multiple traps) or traps (and monster-trap fusions) that can kill a pc quite quickly in one go?

Anyone else can also answer how they like.


thejeff wrote:
Immortal Greed wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Immortal Greed wrote:
Josh M. wrote:

A game with no risks is boring to me. There's no such thing as an "arbitrary death" in the games I play/run. Death is death. If people can drown in a spoonful of water in real life, then so can fantasy characters.

I just play by the rules the books says to. If a trap does enough damage to kill my character, I shouldn't magically become immune to trap damage all of a sudden.

If a DM didn't mean for a character to die, then they should've prepared the encounter better. We all make mistakes, it's true, but here's a tip: don't throw an encounter at the party that is CR 4+ the party ECL if you don't want someone to die. I've seen this happen; facepalms abound.

Yep, yep and yes.

As a friend has said "people die from falling over". If players don't think there is risk stepping into a trap filled dungeon or monster den, they will soon learn to be more cautious with the next char.

Yes, be very careful about the +4 ECL, and take note of the groups weaknesses and strengths. What is likely to counter them (go easy on that).

Absolutely great if you want to play like that.

If you want your characters to be larger than life heroes and not die silly ignominious deaths, that's also great.

Lol.

A good dungeon should have the risk of silly death and grisly death contained within.

Take Sen's fortress in Dark Souls. You and some of the monsters can be crushed by giant rolling balls (silly death), and you can be guillotined off a walkway and then fall many many tens of feet on to tar covered ground, and then a demon stabs your corpse (just to make sure). That is a grisly death, and the whole fortress is a challenging and thrilling dungeon.

Check those boxes!

Players can groan and then laugh at their failure if they die the silly death, and be shocked and surprised at the grisly death. Entertain those players with the demise of their characters.

Again that's great if you like...

We like the same things. Dangerous dungeons does not mean heavy roleplaying and complex plots have to go out of the window (and on to the pit of halberds).


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Immortal Greed wrote:
Three questions for you Vivianne, if a character were to keep walking into traps when does an "arbitrary death" become a "death due to carelessness"?

One thing a GM should be aware of is that what is obvious to the GM, isn't always obvious the players. The classic story is the gazebo encounter, but I am sure many GMs have run into much more mundane situations where the GM thinks they are being obvious about something and the players just aren't seeing it and the GM thinks, why are they walking right into this?


Yep! One more thing to keep in mind is that players can learn and adapt and they can also get used to a certain type of play. That can lower their guard relating to other things, like trapped dungeons. So got to dip them into the acid pools before you go for full immersion.


Immortal Greed wrote:
Yep! One more thing to keep in mind is that players can learn and adapt and they can also get used to a certain type of play. That can lower their guard relating to other things, like trapped dungeons. So got to dip them into the acid pools before you go for full immersion.

Wait, why do they have to learn and adapt? Can't you just discuss how the game will be done?


Immortal Greed wrote:
Three questions for you Vivianne, if a character were to keep walking into traps when does an "arbitrary death" become a "death due to carelessness"?

If these traps are deadly as you claim, then a character cannot walk into them continuously. They would be killed by the first trap and then not be able to walk into any more traps, what with being dead and all.

Quote:
Do you think traps should be respected and players show caution and planning when progressing through a dungeon?

No. The solution is to instead not go into labyrinths filled with death traps and oozes to search for gold coins and gems. If dungeons in the world are as dangerous as you paint them, then the only reasonable decision for a character to make is to not go in these dungeons. Instead, you should hire idiots with no sense of self-preservation to go through the dangerous labyrinth for you. They are expendable. If they survive, you can ambush them outside the exit and take all the loot they gathered!

The other option is that you roleplay a suicidal character who goes into these dangerous dungeons with the intent of suicide by trap. But that's necessarily not something that works for every character.

Quote:
Lastly, does a multiple trap set-up offend you more (a dungeon that kills your char steadily via multiple traps) or traps (and monster-trap fusions) that can kill a pc quite quickly in one go?

The former. But only because it seems to assume that wands of CLW and Lesser Restoration aren't available.

Silver Crusade

4 people marked this as a favorite.

If you don't want your character to die then why are you playing Pathfinder?

Let me rephrase that. If you want control over your character's death, why are you playing Pathfinder?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Immortal Greed wrote:
We like the same things. Dangerous dungeons does not mean heavy roleplaying and complex plots have to go out of the window (and on to the pit of halberds).

No. Actually we don't.

While you may also enjoy heavy roleplaying and complex plots, I specifically said I don't like the trap/combat heavy deadly dungeons crawls you seem enamored of. I find that either the frequent death of characters or the tactics and attitudes they encourage interferes with what I want of my gaming.

301 to 350 of 538 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / General Discussion / Why can't I care deeply about my character and accept arbitrary death? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.