My character died am I wrong to be frustrated?

[Galithar]

Or just having seen the cleric cast a spell of any kind. If I know magic can heal, and you use magic, I'm going to assume you can heal. This goes quadruply so if I recognize it as magic a cleric would use (Spritual Weapon, sacred flame, Toll the Dead)

[SpanielBear]

Or just having seen the cleric cast a spell of any kind. If I know magic can heal, and you use magic, I'm going to assume you can heal. This goes quadruply so if I recognize it as magic a cleric would use (Spritual Weapon, sacred flame, Toll the Dead)

"I say! This fellow in heavy armour chanted some mumbo jumbo, and fire fell from the sky and burnt Toby to a crisp!"

…

"I'd better do something about that."

…

"But fiiiirst I'll make sure this prone fellow bleeding from several holes is put out of his misery."



Which is to say, context is king. Sometimes the presence of a cleric means make sure the wounded don't come back. Other times, it means "Scrag the healer!".

I don't mean to single you out, your point is pretty valid IMO. I liked the anecdote a few pages ago about the elven guards- if the enemy see you heal, and if in so doing you cause them further pain, heck yeah they're going to make sure you stay down! But maybe not every enemy needs to be played to the hilt- and you don't need to do it every time to make the players feel threatened. So long as they are uncertain, they're gonna take it seriously. And you can manage combats accordingly.

I also definitely don't want to go round saying anyone's fun is wrong. If it works at your table, that's all that needs to be said. However:

- It seems there is general agreement that the kind of game, including its lethality, is something that should be agreed on at session 0.
- Threats are to be expected, but overwhelming ones should at least be slightly telegraphed.
- If you kill a PC, read the room. If they look like they feel bad about it, maybe don't nail their corpse to the front of a carnival float.
- No murder weasels.

Everything else does not pertain to the OP's case, and this thread is just getting tetchy.

[Teaguethebean]

Why didn't the slavers take the character as a slave or maybe the whole party as slaves wouldn't that make more sense?

[Sigreid]

Why didn't the slavers take the character as a slave or maybe the whole party as slaves wouldn't that make more sense?

Would depend on how much trouble you think they will ultimately be. I'm sure the Romans would have killed Spartacus if they had any inkling the trouble he'd cause them.

[MeeposFire]

Would depend on how much trouble you think they will ultimately be. I'm sure the Romans would have killed Spartacus if they had any inkling the trouble he'd cause them.

Perhaps or did a better job breaking him but since we know that these NPCs do not have the ability to see the future they will be basing their choice on this potential slave the same way they do every slave.

Anyway why are we arguing about MThurston's position on this? His position is far more extreme than what we really need to argue. For instance I would say looking at all the facts that I would not approve of how this DM handled this (for one it feels pretty vindictive) but even so I would not agree with the position that I cannot kill a PC unless it is at the most dramatic moments. I am ok with a PC dying at anytime whether or not it involves death saves. Things happen and PCs die at times but with that said I try to consider all sorts of factors on how my NPCs act in a fight and how they go after down characters or not.

IN this situation if I was going to play up the slaver angle knowing I have a PC barbarian with an anti slavery back story I would go in thinking I was going to provoke a response (seriously this set up is pretty standard for this sort of thing I would have thought the DM was trying to get a fight started here) and plan for it. In this case I would have the slaver enslave all that fight and just like Max said I would consider ransoming the barb with the party making a choice. There are a lot of potential interesting plots here but the DM ignored them and more importantly went out of the way to cause this to be an issue (parade the body on a pike seemingly specifically to make sure there was no chance of making this work?).

But yea we should really be discussing the actual topic on hand rather than MThurston's position which I think is so extreme it muddles the discussion getting us off track arguing his specific views on death rather than whether this specific scenario of death was a mistake.

[terodil]

But yea we should really be discussing the actual topic on hand rather than MThurston's position which I think is so extreme it muddles the discussion getting us off track arguing his specific views on death rather than whether this specific scenario of death was a mistake.

Agreed, though funnily enough, I don't really think there has been anybody in this thread that disagreed with the general opinion of 'could and should have been handled better'.

As for the word 'mistake' -- with respect (and this is not addressed at you, MeeposFire! Neither is this comment directed at this thread specifically.), I find this forum to be extremely vindictive of players and especially DMs who do not play perfectly. On the one hand, reading threads here provides a wealth of insight and valuable tips on how to become better; on the other hand, I can see how doing so would discourage new DMs and players from even trying and gaining their own experience. Advice here often boils down to 'terrible DM, leave the table immediately' or 'kick the player out of the group asap', rather than 'this is why it's problematic, here's how everyone can learn from this and move on'. Most problematic behaviour is not, I believe, born from malice or intent, but from ignorance and misunderstanding, and we should at least try to fix that and to help people grow into great players and GMs before resorting to the big red button, which just means you give up on them and any potential they may have, burn all bridges, and salt the fields.

[Unoriginal]

Agreed, though funnily enough, I don't really think there has been anybody in this thread that disagreed with the general opinion of 'could and should have been handled better'.

As for the word 'mistake' -- with respect (and this is not addressed at you, MeeposFire! Neither is this comment directed at this thread specifically.), I find this forum to be extremely vindictive of players and especially DMs who do not play perfectly. On the one hand, reading threads here provides a wealth of insight and valuable tips on how to become better; on the other hand, I can see how doing so would discourage new DMs and players from even trying and gaining their own experience. Advice here often boils down to 'terrible DM, leave the table immediately' or 'kick the player out of the group asap', rather than 'this is why it's problematic, here's how everyone can learn from this and move on'. Most problematic behaviour is not, I believe, born from malice or intent, but from ignorance and misunderstanding, and we should at least try to fix that and to help people grow into great players and GMs before resorting to the big red button, which just means you give up on them and any potential they may have, burn all bridges, and salt the fields.

The first advice I give in situations like this is trying to talk things out with the DM and the group.

However, if it doesn't work, yes, either removing yourself or the person causing the problem from the game is the only solution.

Misunderstandings can be solved through communication. If you have a problem (as in, an actual problem, not a minor inconvenience that's not really affecting how much you enjoy the game) that cannot be solved by talking, it means the person is doing it on purpose (which doesn't make it malicious, but it doesn't change the fact they're still doing it after you've expressed it was a problem for you), and then leaving is the best choice.

We may sound vindicative, but we've seen this ol' song and dance a million time before, and probably sung and danced it ourselves a lot along the way.

[CantigThimble]

The first advice I give in situations like this is trying to talk things out with the DM and the group.

However, if it doesn't work, yes, either removing yourself or the person causing the problem from the game is the only solution.

Misunderstandings can be solved through communication. If you have a problem (as in, an actual problem, not a minor inconvenience that's not really affecting how much you enjoy the game) that cannot be solved by talking, it means the person is doing it on purpose (which doesn't make it malicious, but it doesn't change the fact they're still doing it after you've expressed it was a problem for you), and then leaving is the best choice.

We may sound vindicative, but we've seen this ol' song and dance a million time before, and probably sung and danced it ourselves a lot along the way.

Yeah, talking to someone like a reasonable adult about a problem is an incredibly effective solution to a wide variety of issues. It even works on a lot of people who aren't adults. However, if you try that and it doesn't help, then there's really very little recourse other than separating yourself from the problem.

You may not get your ideal solution by talking to them, but you should at least be able to get them to understand why you're frustrated and to try to do something about it. But if open communication fails to accomplish anything then there's nothing else to be done.

[Tanarii]

Misunderstandings can be solved through communication. If you have a problem (as in, an actual problem, not a minor inconvenience that's not really affecting how much you enjoy the game) that cannot be solved by talking, it means the person is doing it on purpose (which doesn't make it malicious, but it doesn't change the fact they're still doing it after you've expressed it was a problem for you), and then leaving is the best choice.

Good distinction on "doing it purpose" vs malice, especially since to many people the former implies the latter. Neither thinking one is in the right nor failing to care about the affect of ones actions on another person is necessary malicious. It's often more callousness. Maliciousness requires active intent to harm.

But at a certain point, you just have to put attitudes like "suck it up, buttercup" on the balance scale with the original problem, and decide if the cons outweigh the pros. For example, no one should feel forced to play in an old-school meat-grinder. They should want to, for the challenge.

Of course, in the OP+followups situation, it does come across as a DM that has active intent to harm. Not just callousness.