donsr:
one guy lost a character like that, but he's still in the game, and never complains about it.
How long were they kept from participating while they were between characters?
donsr:
again.. the chance ( no matter how slim) that your character could die, give the player s a bit more to play through, and play for.
If the chance is really very low, and the GM is involved in helping players avoid it, and it can only usually come about due to an active choice by the player, then the possibility of character death really doesn't matter to the game. Any sense anyone has of it is completely manufactured, and not really relevant to the actual challenges of the game.
Silverlock:
It's better to have a game last than to go on a power trip and purposefully kill, maim, and destroy the 'worldly' goods of a PC. So I'd have to say mercy provides a better gaming experience.
Isn't there a middle ground between those two things? Characters in stories often suffer no permanent damage themselves, but still suffer permanent, irrevocable losses.
Silverlock:
1. Having the players worry about their PC's safety is one thing; willfully railroading the PCs into impossible-to-survive situations is another thing, such that the players can't even begin to figure out how to get out of trouble. The first will get the players really thinking, the second will cause your players to disappear.
There's a middle ground there, too.
The times I see power-trippy railroading occur is when a GM doesn't like a player's approach to the game, when they feel the need to "teach the player a lesson."
Silverlock:
I employed the horseshoe warning system for bad playing back then; one horseshoe falls on you, a saddle falls on you, then the horse falls on you, so there's plenty of warning.
I'm not sure I understand. Are you saying that you'll railroad a player into worse and worse punishments if they cheat or are unpleasant?
GreenTongue:
I try to give the players an out if they give me anything to work with.
Why is that? Failure seems like it should be a natural and perfectly enjoyable part of any game. If it's not, if it's something to be avoided, why play with those stakes?
GreenTongue:
They will always "push the button", "proactively attack" or "flash wealth in a seedy place".
I don't need to put any effort into it. I just give them the opportunity.
Character death, however anyone feels about it, would tend to disrupt the flow of play, since one or more players is essentially ejected from the game. How do you handle that in your games? Do you have a plan for bringing players back in quickly and seamlessly, or can they expect to wait for a while?
donsr:
the Mantra is " if you walk into the dragon's mouth to get the gem form between its teeth..you'll get eaten "
It's up to the GM whether or not situations like that exist in the game.
donsr:
The whole thing for my players is playing through the 'story/game's if it were a ensemble TV series or Movie ( start trek, Band of Brothers, space above and beyond ,starship troopers ect ect)
The interesting thing about ensemble shows is that it's tricky to kill of the main characters. Sometimes movies have a bit more freedom and can shock the audience by killing a "star" character, even early on. But actors in long-running shows usually have contracts and are expected to survive, unless there's a contract dispute or something. Yet, such shows can still be tense because there's more at stake than just the characters' lives.
donsr:
there is some comic relief but the game is taken seriously since it is a darker game..people who go out of their way to do 'stupid stuff', find that they can get hurt..killed or put others in dangers... the reactions of PCs and NPCs tend to reflect that.
I find it's often about the "stupid" stuff. Why is that? Even being completely smart about things doesn't always work out. And in shows, what the characters themselves consider "stupid" is often the most entertaining. Captain Kirk is always taking crazy risks. Han thought it was stupid to attack the Death Star, and he was right.
And "stupid" is extremely relative. In D&D, it's "stupid" to try to make a living by going into dungeons, or entering areas no one has ever returned from. It's "smarter" just to stay home and be a blacksmith, or something. Yet, the "stupid" thing is expected to have a pretty good chance of being rewarding.
donsr:
In the end? its all in the hands of the players.. the GM/DM is there to set stages, and add background , along with spicing the pot with fun NPCs
The GM holds massive amounts of responsibility. We should never forget that.
donsr:
'mericful' is not realy the right word here...'Tolerant' might be better.
Are you referring to the "punishment" of character death being tied to "stupid" behavior?
To people generally feel like character death (maiming, impoverishing, whatever) is primarily to be seen as a punishment? If so, is that really healthy? It can come about even if someone is perfectly nice, plays fair, and goes along with the theme of the game, can't it? I get the impression that people tend to feel that death should only happen to players who are deliberately annoying. But if two perfectly nice, perfectly fun, perfectly fair players both sit down to play most other games, it's likely that one of them is going to lose, and in that event it's not a consequence for some kind of personality defect, it's just one possible outcome. If the losing player felt like never playing chess again, we'd feel like they were over-reacting, or being a poor sport.
There can be lots of ways to "lose" in D&D and I think character death is generally the most boring way, but losing should never be intended as a "punishment." And if it's a "natural consequence" the GM should take responsibility.