Troll Lord Games

So, as my brother Litzen can attest, the last gaming session nearly featured a TPK. It was a hard encounter, the group was short a few members, and they didn’t work together as a team at all. Only one of the characters actually died, though. And the player has been pretty upset about it, accusing me of being unfair and railroading his character to death.

We’ve got things mostly worked out, but I was honestly shocked at the player’s words. To me, character death sucks, but you move on. In a game with so many options on what to play, it’s an opportunity to try out a new idea.

The player is definitely a new-school player, and this got me wondering, is character death truly an old-school thing now?

Jyrdan Fairblade wrote:
The player is definitely a new-school player, and this got me wondering, is character death truly an old-school thing now?

No. Character death is an adult thing. (N.B. age ≠ to being an adult). One PC died and players are upset? Solution: Play with adults. I sometimes run games for teens. There is no problem when a PC dies. It is understood that going out to kill monsters and become rich is the most dangerous profession.

Just explain going in to the game that death WILL happen to some at some point. Either they are ok or they stay under momma's skirt and play with children.

I agree with arduin, however, compare newer edition dnd pc's to old school dnd. New pc's are very resilient and have more hp. Additionally, life is cheap. If you die, the party hunts down the nearest cleric, pays for a resurrection spell and poof! You're back in the game.

Despite that, if you explain that death happens, then your players will be more accepting of it when it does occur.

Lastly, if your players are really attached to their characters, you can use tpk to start a new undead campaign. I remember from one campaign we experienced tpk and the dm brought everyone back as a kind of undead version of their pc. My character became a revenant, one pc became a torso (he had been hacked to pieces), which learned to "grow"limbs of energy to sustain himself. Another pc learned they were the current incarnation of some minor dwarf god, and the ladt pc was a deva so they just respawned. The funny thing about that was that this pc hated the party and wanted to escape. He welcomed death gladly but was super miffed when he respawned right next to his previous dead body. Tpk is a great chance to advance the story, or as mentioned, try something new.

I'm a fan of sending the new party after the remains of the original party so they can be given a proper burial.

jdizzy001 wrote:I agree with arduin, however, compare newer edition dnd pc's to old school dnd. New pc's are very resilient and have more hp. Additionally, life is cheap. If you die, the party hunts down the nearest cleric, pays for a resurrection spell and poof! You're back in the game.

Yes, 5th edition has wildly munchkin HP rules compared to 1st, 2nd & 3rd edition. (which will breed new cry baby RPGers ) I don't remember in the 3.x rules that resurrections were easily purchasable. However, it's been years since I played that version. (4E was a write off for me and mine)

Arduin wrote:

Jyrdan Fairblade wrote:
The player is definitely a new-school player, and this got me wondering, is character death truly an old-school thing now?

No. Character death is an adult thing. (N.B. age ≠ to being an adult). One PC died and players are upset? Solution: Play with adults. I sometimes run games for teens. There is no problem when a PC dies. It is understood that going out to kill monsters and become rich is the most dangerous profession.

Just explain going in to the game that death WILL happen to some at some point. Either they are ok or they stay under momma's skirt and play with children.

It is and it isn't...so I don't know whether to agree or disagree with the above statement.

There are many mitigating factors. One, the maturity level of the players involved. We've all heard of the anecdotal stories of "I've played with 10 year olds who were better roleplayers/more mature than some 40 year olds!!!" While that may or may not be true, maturity-level is only a part of it. As jdizzy said, sometimes systems have something to do with it. Game systems can lend themselves to "heroic play," where character death rarely occurs, or is difficult to achieve. This is more commonplace in newer games, certainly, but as the dynamic changed over the years, systems changed to compensate for it. Meaning, as games became less and less about "killing monsters and taking their stuff" and more about "telling an awesome story" systems changed to reflect that. A lot of the time, the table top RPG is akin to an epic story, and usually one that doesn't have the protagonists dying every other session.

Lastly, an important factor that ties into the last point, is simply the GM. Sometimes, there are GMs that like the game and don't want to inflict a character death on players and unless they do something totally bone-headed. They're at the table to tell a story, and want to tell their story. Character death, if not necessary warranted, is often avoided. And this is not a new-school mentality - I've heard stories of this back in the 80s, around the time I first started playing D&D.

Lord Dynel wrote: Character death, if not necessary warranted, is often avoided. And this is not a new-school mentality - I've heard stories of this back in the 80s, around the time I first started playing D&D.

Yes, I remember when that was creeping in. About 10 years after D&D started there were DM's who wanted to write and then "run" stories. (They wanted to be authors not DM's) They were called railroading DM's at the time. A very small minority of DM's played that way. There are now many who mistake/conflate running a script or "story" with running a D&D type RPG.

Arduin wrote:

Lord Dynel wrote: Character death, if not necessary warranted, is often avoided. And this is not a new-school mentality - I've heard stories of this back in the 80s, around the time I first started playing D&D.

Yes, I remember when that was creeping in. About 10 years after D&D started there were DM's who wanted to write and then "run" stories. (They wanted to be authors not DM's) They were called railroading DM's at the time. A very small minority of DM's played that way. There are now many who mistake/conflate running a script or "story" with running a D&D type RPG.

True. I think much of it back then was a DM who had this great idea for a novel and decided that writing said novel would take way too much effort, but translating it to a D&D game would be easy...as long as the PCs stayed on track!

I've often had good stories I wanted to tell, but I usually embed them in a more sandbox style game and hope the players find the hook interesting enough to warrant further investigation.

I'll admit - in my games, I don't relish character death. But I don't avoid it. I don't "trap" the characters in encounters where death is certain. Death in my games usually comes from poor player choice. Bad rolls and awesome ideas/strategies that somehow, inexplicably, turn out bad I am a bit more forgiving. Stupid play, however, I am less so.

Jyrdan Fairblade wrote:Only one of the characters actually died, though. And the player has been pretty upset about it, accusing me of being unfair and railroading his character to death.

I doubt you were unfair or railroaded the player, but I am interested in hearing more about the situation.

In my games, I tell people, you are in a dangerous profession. Your character could very well die. Whether that fits in with your heroic self image or not, if it happens it happens. I don't gun for the players, but the monsters aren't going to hold back. I don't like the idea of HP and saves being there just as bumps in the road to delay you and waste your time. Persistence isn't enough to get you to the treasure, you also have to get there and back in one piece.

This was running 5e, which is a whole lot deadlier than the last edition. Maybe he got so used to the nigh-invulnerability of 4e, I dunno.

The situation was that the PCs had been trying to stop a dark elf mercenary that had been killing people and blowing stuff up all across town. They finally confronted him, after a rooftop chase. He was on a rooftop 20 feet away from them and sicks a wyrmling white dragon on them.

I figured that since it was the first dragon of the campaign, that would be a big deal and they would focus on it. Instead, Litzen fought the dragon, the player in question closed so that he was the only one meleeing with the dark elf, and the other player used ranged attacks to fight both. They split the party. Everyone got taken down, and had to make death saves. But he was the only one that failed three times (he rolled a natural 1, even).

My general philosophy is that you only die in my games if you do something foolish or the dice betray you. I try to create challenging but not impossible adventures. I never use instant-death poisons or monsters like the catoblepas (Okay, there was that one time with the Nine Lives Stealer, but I was 12 or so at the time).

My old dm's philosaphy, and he said this a lot, I'm not gunning to kill your character, but I'm not afraid to pull the trigger. I learned this when I went in to rescue a member of the party which had been captured. We were standing outside a drow city trying to figure out if we should rescue our captured comrade. The player urged us to abandon her as we were all aware that the one who captured her (who was a very munchkined pc we made for a power house campaign) outclassed us by dmg output and level. However, in the greatest moment of *role* playing, i did what my pc would have done. I went back. The rest of the party knew it was crazy, they knew we couldnt win but they chose to go back with me. I walked right up to the dm's metaphoric gun, put the barrel on my chest and said, "I'm ready when you are!"

I totally died.

I've heard stuff like "Dying isn't fun, so why have it in the game?" or "The game is about heroes. Does Conan die?" or something about spoiling the character's narrative arc. It also seems to go hand in hand with people trying to "win" D&D. Dying is losing, and losing sucks, so this game sucks. When I first heard that sort of thing I was blindsided too.

I don't think everyone who started gaming in the 2000s has this point of view, but it is one that's out there. I'm learning to be patient with these points of view and give them the benefit of the doubt about their reasoning and expectations. However, when I run a game I run the way I want to, and that is a game with risk in it.

I'm not a total bastard. There are lots of ways to come back from a humiliating defeat or even death, though until the party is self-sufficient, this might require some legwork.

In my games, even poor tactics usually don't result in a TPK, but can come close. Poor tactics plus unlucky dice, well, what do they want you to do instead? Fudge for them?

I guess all you can do is make it clear at the outset how risky your game is now that you know everyone doesn't come in with the same assumptions.

Lord Dynel wrote:

Arduin wrote:

Lord Dynel wrote: Character death, if not necessary warranted, is often avoided. And this is not a new-school mentality - I've heard stories of this back in the 80s, around the time I first started playing D&D.

Yes, I remember when that was creeping in. About 10 years after D&D started there were DM's who wanted to write and then "run" stories. (They wanted to be authors not DM's) They were called railroading DM's at the time. A very small minority of DM's played that way. There are now many who mistake/conflate running a script or "story" with running a D&D type RPG.

True. I think much of it back then was a DM who had this great idea for a novel and decided that writing said novel would take way too much effort, but translating it to a D&D game would be easy...as long as the PCs stayed on track!

I've often had good stories I wanted to tell, but I usually embed them in a more sandbox style game and hope the players find the hook interesting enough to warrant further investigation.

I'll admit - in my games, I don't relish character death. But I don't avoid it. I don't "trap" the characters in encounters where death is certain. Death in my games usually comes from poor player choice. Bad rolls and awesome ideas/strategies that somehow, inexplicably, turn out bad I am a bit more forgiving. Stupid play, however, I am less so.

I like when a GM comes up with a broad story as the back drop (looking back we call it history) and the PC's can jump on board and interact sand box style. Death comes usually from player actions/inactions with eyes open.

This reminds me of a big debate/argument I got into on ENWorld where they insisted being the DM/GM/CK was not an adversarial "position". My view was, and is, I am trying to kill the PC's. Just because I am trying my utmost to do it "fairly" doesn't make it non adversarial. Yet there were many pages of argument for that discussion "proving" how it wasn't being adversarial.

But hey, I understand. I really hate losing a character that I enjoy playing. If I really want to keep playing him, I can. I just have to pay the price to get Raised/Resurrected/Reincarnated, and I am back to playing the character. Or, if I am ready to play something new, then I do that. Now if I were to lose a character, and not have the option of getting him/her raised, then I would be upset with the DM, because if they weren't going to allow spells in the book, they should have said so from the beginning.

People like to eliminate those spells, because apparently for some reason, real life, and death in real life, isn't depressing enough, so they want it in their Gaming as well. For me, gaming IS escapism, and in the RPG's I typically play, the Gods ARE real, and DO raise the dead. So I not only allow it, I encourage it.

Treebore wrote: Now if I were to lose a character, and not have the option of getting him/her raised, then I would be upset with the DM, because if they weren't going to allow spells in the book, they should have said so from the beginning.

At very low levels, per the book, it is unlikely that the group would be able to get a PC "raised". The cost/availability/willingness would be hard to come by. By medium levels it shouldn't be an insurmountable problem.

But I agree. A GM runs monsters that are trying to destroy PCs. Sounds adversarial to me.

Arduin wrote:

Treebore wrote: Now if I were to lose a character, and not have the option of getting him/her raised, then I would be upset with the DM, because if they weren't going to allow spells in the book, they should have said so from the beginning.

At very low levels, per the book, it is unlikely that the group would be able to get a PC "raised". The cost/availability/willingness would be hard to come by. By medium levels it shouldn't be an insurmountable problem.

But I agree. A GM runs monsters that are trying to destroy PCs. Sounds adversarial to me.

Interesting. I've never considered my position as adversarial. By default, sure...I suppose. I construct and run the opposing encounters for the players but to me, adversarial means "enemy" or someone in direct conflict with another. I wouldn't consider myself as enemy of the players but one that adjudicates the response to the PC's stimuli. But I digress...this itself can be a long drawn-out discussion.

Treebore wrote:People like to eliminate those spells, because apparently for some reason, real life, and death in real life, isn't depressing enough, so they want it in their Gaming as well. For me, gaming IS escapism, and in the RPG's I typically play, the Gods ARE real, and DO raise the dead. So I not only allow it, I encourage it.

Yes, and that's a little nuts. I mean, if it works for them, great. I've messed around with some variations (only a god of life having the raise spells, or resurrection works in only special spots in my world) but I agree with you - most of the fun for me is the fantasy of this fantasy game. Gods bestowing miraculous powers through their priests is but one aspect I enjoy.

To chime in, as one of the players in the above-referenced adventure: the pleasure of being related to the DM is the ability to complain without getting kicked out of the campaign. In this case, I think it a fair call despite having my character making death saves on a rooftop by the end of the adventure. Jyrdan, in discussing it with me after the fact, brought up the Gygax quote in Treebore's signature. I think the adversarial relationship also has some merit in the discussion: while I don't think Jyrdan has ever viewed himself as out to kill of the PCs directly, when it comes to min-maxing players, it often seems like the PC who is seeking to create the munchkinest of munchkins does view it as a form of competition with the DM.

Does the DM/GM/CK/etc need to work to kill off the PCs to craft a good story? Death can be part of a narrative as much as victory and I tend to take the narrative approach, rather than the competitive one. My personal philosophy is first to have fun, but second to tell a good story in a collaborative fashion. I love the idea of a TPK leading to a second arc of a campaign as undead. Last time I killed off a player, they got to come back, but via reincarnate as a wolf. Sure they got to keep playing their character, but the story moved in a dramatically different direction as a result.

Litzen Tallister wrote:
Does the DM/GM/CK/etc need to work to kill off the PCs to craft a good story?

I can't think of a good story that HASN'T had death being a very real possibility. At least outside of a comedy or love story, and even those often have death involved in some way. Heightens the tension/drama at the very least. Now do I like a story where the author is killing off characters left and right? No, otherwise I would be a fan of The Game of Thrones.

Treebore wrote:
I can't think of a good story that HASN'T had death being a very real possibility. At least outside of a comedy or love story, and even those often have death involved in some way. Heightens the tension/drama at the very least. Now do I like a story where the author is killing off characters left and right? No, otherwise I would be a fan of The Game of Thrones.

I think I'm differentiating the GMs play in the role of NPC monsters trying to kill the PCs from the GM creating a world in which practically the entire world is crafted to slaughter the PCs. The former is acting the parts of the characters under the GM's power, whereas the latter is engineering death. To use death as a part of the story is different from putting a tarrasque at the bottom of a pit trap.

Litzen Tallister wrote: To use death as a part of the story is different from putting a tarrasque at the bottom of a pit trap.

Especially since lava at the bottom is more effective.

I don't think you can simplify the incidence of character death's in a campaign to new or old school. It is more a function of campaign expectations.

I have had character deaths occur in every game I have ever ran or played, starting with 1e and all the way up to 3.5 and 4e D&D.

At any rate, this is why it is important for everyone at the table to know what kind of campaign it will be before beginning play. Is the campaign going to be about low level heroes rising up to a pre-defined destiny and more an accounting of how they get there? Or will it be a game where the characters are fighting for their very survival and death, permanent death, can come at any point...whether it be through sheer folly or just a bad string of dice rolls?

Both types of games, and everything in between can be fun, but only if everyone is on board for that kind of game. It sounds like one of the players in your case was not fully briefed on what he was getting into and was understandably confused when his character, that he likely cared about, was killed in action.

Character deaths suck, but the sting can be lessened with expectation management.

Treebore wrote:

Litzen Tallister wrote:
Does the DM/GM/CK/etc need to work to kill off the PCs to craft a good story?

I can't think of a good story that HASN'T had death being a very real possibility.

I agree with this. Death has always been a looming possibility in my games, and usually the players know it. More often that not, death occurs when a player doesn't feel that spectre looming as close as it is. Ultimately, the players at my table know and understand that death can happen if they're not careful. Which is exactly the feeling I want them to have. And they should, I feel.

Litzen Tallister wrote:I think I'm differentiating the GMs play in the role of NPC monsters trying to kill the PCs from the GM creating a world in which practically the entire world is crafted to slaughter the PCs. The former is acting the parts of the characters under the GM's power, whereas the latter is engineering death. To use death as a part of the story is different from putting a tarrasque at the bottom of a pit trap.

Agreed. I consider myself (as GM) to be a roleplayer at the table, too (of course), that takes the role of everyone else. And some of those roles are antagonistic to the party and their goals. Don't get me wrong, I've ran the "deathtrap dungeon" side-games, where the intention was to kill the PCs and quickly and as grisly as possible. But those exist outside of my normal "campaign sphere." Are there places like that in my game world, that will kill you quickly? Yes. Are they ridiculously crafted death traps with the sole purpose to kill PCs? No. But there are lairs, and old tombs guarding ancient treasures, and places of otherworldly evil that if the players go, they'll most likely die. Do those exist solely to kill PCs? No. They exist to challenge high-level PCs, and to give them some place to go when they're ready for challenges like that.

I design everything to kill PC's, then the players have to do their best to not let their PC's die. Usually they succeed in staying alive, but sooner or later 1 or more characters die. Does the character stay dead? I let the player decide. If they want the character back alive to keep playing it, I will tell them how they can make that happen. For low level games, that means I have to let them find out where the nearest NPC, friendly to their alignments and deities, is at. They, the party, goes there, and then the "price" is decided upon. Which can be as simple as a sum of gold, or the accepting of a job/quest on behalf of the deity, or some combination there of.

For higher level games, the group usually already has the resources or ability to Raise Dead, so do it.

Jyrdan Fairblade wrote:So, as my brother Litzen can attest, the last gaming session nearly featured a TPK. It was a hard encounter, the group was short a few members, and they didn’t work together as a team at all. Only one of the characters actually died, though. And the player has been pretty upset about it, accusing me of being unfair and railroading his character to death.

We’ve got things mostly worked out, but I was honestly shocked at the player’s words. To me, character death sucks, but you move on. In a game with so many options on what to play, it’s an opportunity to try out a new idea.

The player is definitely a new-school player, and this got me wondering, is character death truly an old-school thing now?

No. The player needs to get a grip.

Aergraith wrote:I doubt you were unfair or railroaded the player, but I am interested in hearing more about the situation.

In my games, I tell people, you are in a dangerous profession. Your character could very well die. Whether that fits in with your heroic self image or not, if it happens it happens. I don't gun for the players, but the monsters aren't going to hold back. I don't like the idea of HP and saves being there just as bumps in the road to delay you and waste your time. Persistence isn't enough to get you to the treasure, you also have to get there and back in one piece.

I handle it in a similar fashion by telling players that adventuring is dangerous and let the dice fall where they may. Play smart and you're chances of success increase. If players are looking for something less dangerous then multi-classing as a turnip farmer might be right up their alley.

Jyrdan Fairblade wrote:This was running 5e, which is a whole lot deadlier than the last edition. Maybe he got so used to the nigh-invulnerability of 4e, I dunno.

The situation was that the PCs had been trying to stop a dark elf mercenary that had been killing people and blowing stuff up all across town. They finally confronted him, after a rooftop chase. He was on a rooftop 20 feet away from them and sicks a wyrmling white dragon on them.

Sounds like a fun encounter!

Jyrdan Fairblade wrote:I figured that since it was the first dragon of the campaign, that would be a big deal and they would focus on it. Instead, Litzen fought the dragon, the player in question closed so that he was the only one meleeing with the dark elf, and the other player used ranged attacks to fight both. They split the party. Everyone got taken down, and had to make death saves. But he was the only one that failed three times (he rolled a natural 1, even).

Emphasis mine.
One-on-one melee v The Big Bad, splitting the party, and three consecutive failed saves... and the player still accused you or being unfair and railroading his character to death? Is the player 8 years old?

Jyrdan Fairblade wrote:My general philosophy is that you only die in my games if you do something foolish or the dice betray you.

The players dice definitely went cold on him. It happens.

Jyrdan Fairblade wrote:I try to create challenging but not impossible adventures. I never use instant-death poisons or monsters like the catoblepas (Okay, there was that one time with the Nine Lives Stealer, but I was 12 or so at the time).

My games are what I call "tough but fair". Instant-death poisons are possible but, fortunately for the PCs, they are allowed saving throws to avoid an otherwise unavoidable demise. Intelligent and careful play can reduce the likelihood of instant-death poison scenarios whereas the opposite is also possible.

Death is a constant possibility in games I run - even high level ones (or maybe I should say especially high level ones).

Add to that the fact that my game world doesn't have resurrection or raise dead and you see that death is pretty permanent. The PCs don't want to be raised because the only way to be raised is as an undead creature, and that is undesirable, to say the least

I set the expectations of my players right from the beginning. Magical healing is available to injured PCs, and healing salves are available for a bit of work and/or coinage. Also, there is ample opportunity, through smart play and use of resources, to stay alive. But sometimes the dice just are not with a person and they perish despite good choices.. so be it.

I tell my players: That is the way it is. Roll a new PC - a new character can be fun! Do something you haven't done before - explore a new class, learn how new abilities work, and don't waste too much time mourning your lost PC.