On a separate thread in LA Spoilers the topic of PC death came up. I mentioned that as a general rule I thought it was okay for a PC to die in an epic fight with the likes of Uhxbractit but that judges should try to prevent PC death where possible since there is no Raise Dead spell or equivalent in LA.
Tony had the following to say:
Njal Val'Assante wrote:
...snip... this is at odds with the average player's desire to engage in combat at almost every possible opportunity. How many times do people just take combat for granted and wade in? Further, I would argue that at least historically, people were more likely to get killed in small skirmishes and street fights than they were in big grand battles. First, because in a big battle, your enemy doesn't have time to make sure you're dead before they have to defend themselves, and second, when the stakes are higher, people will be more keyed up, aware, and engaged.
Someone mentioned once that it was absurd to be able to go toe-to-toe with Uhxbractit, and then get mauled by a shadow lion into unconsciousness in a later module. Taken at face value, that might be true, but it discounts the fact that every fight you get into could be potentially deadly (after all, it almost inevitably is for the enemies the players are fighting). A single small dog minion who gets a single critical hit, and explodes damage like nobody's business could still drop a player, given how the system works.
To your point Eric, I would agree that it is important to avoid PC deaths where possible and reasonable (i.e. it shouldn't happen just because the GM wants to kill someone). I would just argue that some of the onus for doing so belongs to the players and their decisions, not simply on the GM.
I mostly agree with that. But the sides of the argument are worth fleshing out. So I'll add a little more.
I have to confess I am of two minds about "death by Lucky the Poodle." On the one hand. Duh ... you are absolutely right that many PCs, including plenty of mine, are quick to reach for the sword to solve their problems. And if you live by the sword then you should be willing to die by the sword.
Too quick for the sword? If there are peaceful alternatives, or if a combat is unnecessary, then yes I think ts fine to die there. You had a meaningful choice and you choose to fight Lucky the Poodle, and the results are...? If Lucky gets ... really lucky, well again...that was your choice.
But when I look through the modules in the Crusade Arc this really doesn't come up much. I wish you good luck using sweet reason against the Fiendish Huntsman (The army outside Joppa, the Malfelans, Sarkana, a crazy Elemental from the Prickelspur Forrest, the Cult of the Jackal etc etc). There really isn't a meaningful choice there. So if PCs are quick to use the sword, that's because the sword is all but universally required. When lots of modules get written that potentially punish people who are too trigger happy I guarantee we'll see more measured responses from most players. And the players who are deliberately playing meat heads know they are doing so, and are usually okay with the consequences of their square peg PC being sent into a round hole module.
There is a separate issue of timely vs untimely deaths. I am generally against untimely deaths ... though sometimes you can't avoid them. IMO its better to suffer an untimely death than to face a break in verisimilitude. Other people like a grittier game where death is potentially everywhere.
In a way this hearkens to the divide in fantasy literature between High Fantasy and Low Fantasy. In High Fantasy (Tolkien, Gandalf & Frodo) you get the "epic quest" and a long running plot that has a huge impact on the world at large. Though a few supporting characters can die like Boromir, you can't have the center stage heroes die without the world being consumed by darkness. High Fantasy currently tends to dominate the market. In Low Fantasy ((Lieber & Howard, Fahferd & Mouser, Conan) its pretty much the opposite. The heroes are not on a multi volume quest. Often they end up pretty much where they started ... which usually looking for their next big score. If Mouser or Conan died it wouldn't necessarily change the world a great deal. The world is often or even usually unchanged by their adventures.
While I know Henry loves the tales of Conan and Solomon Kane it seems pretty clear to me that the Arcanis campaign runs on a High Fantasy model rather than a Low Fantasy model. We have sweeping adventure arcs and high stakes for the world. Just as narrative logic forbids Frodo's death on page 35, So too is there a logic that PCs generally shouldn't die for "trivial" reasons at non-climatic moments. At least that's my evolved opinion.
So you're in a Crusade module and the Fiendish Huntsman sends his forces after the PCs in an interlude as the PCs get from A to B. Lucky the Poodle is somehow part of the pack. Yes Lucky could get lucky, but this isn't the high point of the module let alone the high point of the Arc. Even if the party is unlucky, a good judge should try to do what's reasonable and possible to avoid killing PCs in this encounter with Lucky ... if it even comes up. We all know more than 9 out of 10 tables are going to steamroll the poor dog.
A clever judge has lots of things he can do with Lucky in the face of an unconscious or almost dead PC. I mean at one extreme you might be able to coup-de-gras them. But that isn't appropriate. You might move Lucky on to another target. That might or might not be appropriate. You might fudge Lucky's clock, leting another PC act before Lucky goes again. Scary option? Lucky starts to drag the PC off the field of battle. This is clearly *THREATENING* death ... but its also true that it doesn't directly inflict death, and also telegraphs to the rest of the party to *do something!* I know that, when it comes up, I usually care a lot more about keeping other PCs alive than any module "reward" or mission objective. If no one takes an action or two to rescue you from Lucky in this scenario then its basically the party that has killed you.
