Posted By Teflon Jeff on 04/11/2008 8:59 AM
I agree, but there's nothing wrong with giving the PC's more tools in their toolbox to avoid death.

Posted By Shottglazz on 04/13/2008 6:44 AM
Good points Diomedes...as long as the PC's have (through choices, die rolls, strategy, etc) a chance to avoid death, then it's a "good" death...but giving them all the ability to heal themselves so much that they barely have a need for a cleric is really pushing that IMO...

Posted By Diomedes on 04/12/2008 6:49 PM
 If they were sailing the ocean and the DM randomly rolled a storm and the ship sank, I think my players would (understandably) be a bit irritated and wouldn't necessarily come to the conclusion "I should pay for a better ship next time" but rather "the DM must have wanted me dead."

-Dio

Posted By Diomedes on 04/12/2008 6:49 PM
Ah, I agree with his point that death has to be threatening, but I think there's also the concept of a good death and a bad death. A "good death" is one that your player in some way shape or form interacts with, a "bad death" can feel almost as deus ex machina as knowing your dm just fudged a die roll.

For example, my wife was DMing her first game a few years back and she was just running the 5 page adventure at the end of the Eberron setting book. The very first thing that happens is a warforged barbarian (in a rage) jumps over a railing while two handing an axe and charges at you. My characters lost initiative and the barbarian one shot the fighter in the lead (that huge strength bonus coupled with a 2-handed bonus coupled with a crit and it was all over, well past -10). This is a situation in which I would call it a "bad death" and would prefer for a house rule to give them another chance somehow or other. The fighter had literally not made a single decision in the entire game, all he did was roll an initiative.

Now you might say, "Yes, and now he knows that the world is a scary place." And you know, there is a certain undeniable logic to that. Never the less, given how permanent death is, I somehow feel like my characters should play some kind of active roll in it in order to have a "good death". For example, if they choose to enter that red dragon lair, and they die, well, they knew the risks. If they were sailing the ocean and the DM randomly rolled a storm and the ship sank, I think my players would (understandably) be a bit irritated and wouldn't necessarily come to the conclusion "I should pay for a better ship next time" but rather "the DM must have wanted me dead."

-Dio

That's stupid. Shouldn't the DM just cheat the roll so the characters don't die so stupidly? Or just put her to unconsciousness?

Now, one idea that people really need to get over is that dying is the only way to fail, and the consequence of failure is always death.

...she didn't know how to play, I let her live when she did something stupid.

Not to mention, "something stupid" is often "my preconceived idea of what makes sense doesn't match the DMs preconceived idea of what makes sense".

And if every 'new player' got killed out of hand instead of being helped to understand how the game system works, we'd probably have a lot less D&D players. (Actually, we probably DO have a lot less D&D players thanks to this attitude).

That's what wisdom checks are for.

I don't override them, I make them make a wisdom check, and then advise them - especially if they are unfamiliar with the game. Just because a player is stupid enough to charge 10 orcs while having 1hp, doesn't mean the character is.