What is with the entitlement? (shadzar stay out)

[Josh_Kablack]

I like the concept of motivations, they seem probably more actually useful than "alignment" tags, but for the sake of argument, I feel compelled to point out that they only add one more curtain for the MC to hide behind, whichever side of the argument they take.

If you are on the "PC death shouldn't happen" side, then when the PC's get beaten by the giant spiders of Mirkwood (feeders), and then cocooned in spidersilk while the slow-acting poison does its digestive work. Now it's plausible that the PCs may find a way to escape and then have a much easier fight with just a couple guard spiders than the full hunting party ambush - but if randomness is still involved in the combat engine, the PCs can still lose that easier fight, and when that happens due to random chance, you run into plausibility problems. If the guard spiders beat the escaping PCs, they might just tie them back up. And then the PCs might escape again, and they might fight the guard spiders again, and they might lose again - at which point you have a boring an repetitive tale on your hands. Or they guard spiders might take steps to make additional escapes more difficult, at which point the odds of the PCs escaping again before they are eaten drops. Or maybe the PCs lose to the guards and are then saved by lucky contrivance - but that's deus ex machina, which is very likely to make the players feel slighted. So in this case, random results can still lead you to a BAD story when you prevent PC death.

If you are on the other side, and feel that "the risk of PC death adds dramatic tension to the game", you are likely to be vexed by players who memorize the motivations listed in the Monster Manual and use that knowledge to justify things like not taking initial encounters seriously or just offering up low level henchmen (or other PCs) to Sadistic-tagged monsters. While several of those options can make for great stories, they can also be really difficult to plan for on-the-fly, especially in a system that's as complicated and time-consuming as 3e D&D when it comes to generating mid-level and higher intelligent opponents.

[tussock]

This game is basically 3e.

That game? What stops the players being total dicks and not worrying about the losses? Even if something steals their gear, they can just butt heads with it over and over until the dice say they win and get their gear back.

What's the ultimate cost to randomly assassinating high level NPCs for treasure, if they won't ever kill you for being optimal? If characters can't end, what prevents people playing the odds and waiting for a big win?

I guess you can all just agree to pretend that things are dangerous, even when you're ludicrously invulnerable to everything, even without your gear. Or the DM could arbitrarily kill anyone for being a dick.

Or maybe you could just mechanically kill characters who take too many risks.

[A Man In Black]

I like the concept of motivations, they seem probably more actually useful than "alignment" tags, but for the sake of argument, I feel compelled to point out that they only add one more curtain for the MC to hide behind, whichever side of the argument they take.

If you are on the "PC death shouldn't happen" side[...]

If you are on the other side, and feel that "the risk of PC death adds dramatic tension to the game"[...]

I'm still not sure that "recoverable TPK" is a useful or practical design idea. Nobody's excluded from the game when you get a TPK, and on top of that, if the TPK was profoundly stupid, the players can always usurp the GM. (It has happened.) It feels a bit like overdesigning to try to address it. Nevertheless, I'm already here...

The way to address the first paragraph's concerns is to design the few monsters that capture to have a hole you will escape through, at a cost. On one hand, it's implausible that every single monster that captures that party can't manage to keep it captive, but it's pretty implausible that you're going to TPK and tie up/jail/web the party multiple times to begin with. The default motivation of most monsters, even if they win, is just to leave you on the ground anyway.

As for the second para, if you mean that people would just purposefully get TPKed and then escape, then either this whole recoverable TPK house of cards needs to go away, or there needs to be a default cost associated with losing that the GM can also ratchet up at will. I kind of like "This is the default consequence, also here's some a montage of bad things that happened in the meantime." If this were a real game and I were a real game designer, it'd need some iteration. As for feeding henchmen or weak party members to sadistic monsters, I don't foresee that happening any more than it does now. As for baiting sadistic monsters that way, I consider that a feature and not a bug.

That game? What stops the players being total dicks and not worrying about the losses? Even if something steals their gear, they can just butt heads with it over and over until the dice say they win and get their gear back.

What's the ultimate cost to randomly assassinating high level NPCs for treasure, if they won't ever kill you for being optimal? If characters can't end, what prevents people playing the odds and waiting for a big win?

I guess you can all just agree to pretend that things are dangerous, even when you're ludicrously invulnerable to everything, even without your gear. Or the DM could arbitrarily kill anyone for being a dick.

Or maybe you could just mechanically kill characters who take too many risks.

Why don't PCs who can resurrect each other do that in 3e right now?

I suppose if the story people want to tell is that of constantly throwing themselves at superior forces and getting mercilessly beaten and cast into a dungeon or a deep pit or something and barely escaping to seek another futile revenge... they can do that if they want. Even if they win, they haven't broken the game, just ended that part of the story. It would be a terribly bleak story, but if that's their idea of fantasy, it would work in this game.

You can make any story you want sound stupid if you present it in a reductionist way.

[Chamomile]

I think the best approach is to build in a costly, can't-fail escape mechanic right into the flavor of the world. For example, all PCs (not including NPCs with levels in PC classes) automatically have a certain rare spell, either because we wouldn't be telling stories about them if they didn't or because that makes them the chosen ones or because the event that gets the party together in the first ten minutes also bestows it upon them or whatever. This spell is inherent, it cannot be forgotten or exhausted. It automatically teleports the players back to a certain safe haven, which cannot be moved (some ancient tower or cavern or something), but it teleports only them. Everything they're wielding or wearing gets left behind (hopefully they're smart enough to leave a change of clothes in the panic room). It might also come with some kind of XP cost. It should also be triggerable even if you're unconscious or incapacitated or whatever other non-dead state you enter when your HP drops to zero.

[RadiantPhoenix]

I think the best approach is to build in a costly, can't-fail escape mechanic right into the flavor of the world. For example, all PCs (not including NPCs with levels in PC classes) automatically have a certain rare spell, either because we wouldn't be telling stories about them if they didn't or because that makes them the chosen ones or because the event that gets the party together in the first ten minutes also bestows it upon them or whatever. This spell is inherent, it cannot be forgotten or exhausted. It automatically teleports the players back to a certain safe haven, which cannot be moved (some ancient tower or cavern or something), but it teleports only them. Everything they're wielding or wearing gets left behind (hopefully they're smart enough to leave a change of clothes in the panic room). It might also come with some kind of XP cost. It should also be triggerable even if you're unconscious or incapacitated or whatever other non-dead state you enter when your HP drops to zero.

The 'leave everything behind' clause seems hefty enough. I would not put condition requirements in, nor would I put XP costs. I might add a further time cost, i.e.: it takes you a while to get to the point where you can actually do stuff afterwards.

[K]

Why don't PCs who can resurrect each other do that in 3e right now?

I suppose if the story people want to tell is that of constantly throwing themselves at superior forces and getting mercilessly beaten and cast into a dungeon or a deep pit or something and barely escaping to seek another futile revenge... they can do that if they want. Even if they win, they haven't broken the game, just ended that part of the story. It would be a terribly bleak story, but if that's their idea of fantasy, it would work in this game.

You can make any story you want sound stupid if you present it in a reductionist way.

As the game exists, you can already throw character after character into challenges until you beat them or the DM refuses to allow the fight. You can't remove players from the game permanently even if you can remove their characters and the story can't end because its open-ended.

The pain of permanent PC death is from the total loss of player story and its part in the overall story, but in terms of overall story the players are immortal and can continue moving the overall story under the guise of an unlimited number of characters. You can literally fight the soul-killing monster by playing the game Paranoia-style by throwing character after character into it's waiting jaws. The only price is that you have to be satisfied with the base equipment a new character gets and stop even worrying about the petty desire to get equipment or collecting XP until you win. (That being said, who cares about getting awesome equipment for an 8th level character when you can just start an 8th level character with new and appropriate equipment to play with?)

If you don't value the individual character's story, the "game" part of an RPG goes to easy-mode in a blink because failure and success both mean getting to play a character.

The DM can also end the overall story at will if the PCs fail often enough, but then he merely comes up with a new story which the PCs can play the exact same way. He can say that the Black King becomes too powerful and the players now play a new campaign or continue the old by fighting the Black King's second-in-command.

At the end of the day, the only consequence to permanent death is that everyone gets a shittier story. There are no consequences for the "game" part of the game and I wish people would realize that.

That being said, there really is no need to make elaborate mechanics to prevent character death since the punishment only exists if the players still care about their character's story, an expectation that becomes more unrealistic the more times they have permanently died.

You either choose to kill characters permanently or you don't... anything else is just a distraction.

[Chamomile]

The 'leave everything behind' clause seems hefty enough. I would not put condition requirements in, nor would I put XP costs. I might add a further time cost, i.e.: it takes you a while to get to the point where you can actually do stuff afterwards.

I like the time cost in place of an XP cost. It'll do just as much damage to the character's goals without doing any damage to the narrative, and it also gives the players a sense that some progress is always retained, no matter what happens.

Do not that I said that the teleportation could be activated even if incapacitated, not only if. You should be able to use it to get out of any spot tight enough to warrant the cost.

[Fuchs]

As the game exists, you can already throw character after character into challenges until you beat them or the DM refuses to allow the fight. You can't remove players from the game permanently even if you can remove their characters and the story can't end because its open-ended.

The pain of permanent PC death is from the total loss of player story and its part in the overall story, but in terms of overall story the players are immortal and can continue moving the overall story under the guise of an unlimited number of characters. You can literally fight the soul-killing monster by playing the game Paranoia-style by throwing character after character into it's waiting jaws. The only price is that you have to be satisfied with the base equipment a new character gets and stop even worrying about the petty desire to get equipment or collecting XP until you win. (That being said, who cares about getting awesome equipment for an 8th level character when you can just start an 8th level character with new and appropriate equipment to pay with?)

If you don't value the individual character's story, the "game" part of an RPG goes to easy-mode in a blink because failure and success both mean getting to play a character.

The DM can also end the overall story at will if the PCs fail often enough, but then he merely comes up with a new story which the PCs can play the exact same way. He can say that the Black King becomes too powerful and the players now play a new campaign or continue the old by fighting the Black King's second-in-command.

At the end of the day, the only consequence to permanent death is that everyone gets a shittier story. There are no consequences for the
"game" part of the game and I wish people would realize that.

That being said, there really is no need to make elaborate mechanics to prevent character death since the punishment only exists if the players still care about their character's story, an expectation that becomes more unrealistic the more times they have permanently died.

You either choose to kill characters permanently or you don't... anything else is just a distraction.

That counters the "punishment is needed for the game" nicely.

[tussock]

Why don't PCs who can resurrect each other do that in 3e right now?

You lose a level, eh. Either that or you have to have 25,000gp lying around ready to set on fire. Dying in 3e is the opposite of all player motivations, money, wealth, screen time, not begging the Cleric for shit.

I generally allow a new character that one level down instead, as the player prefers, but either way if you were to make death runs all day you regress to broke-ass 1st level characters and learn to play D&D again.

At the end of the day, the only consequence to permanent death is that everyone gets a shittier story. There are no consequences for the "game" part of the game and I wish people would realize that.

Is anyone reading my posts? Echo?

The meta-game consequences are all that matters. PC death motivates players to not do the things that cause PC death. That's how some DMs can use it's threat to control meta-game issues like people being dicks (which is terra-bad, but works for a reason, eh).

Some people here are saying that players might often have limited influence over character death, but I have not seen that problem. I think the no-death people see it because players stop bothering about avoiding death if you stop killing their characters.

[Fuchs]

The meta-game consequences are all that matters. PC death motivates players to not do the things that cause PC death. That's how some DMs can use it's threat to control meta-game issues like people being dicks (which is terra-bad, but works for a reason, eh).

The point is that if all you care about is beating the monsters in tactical combat, then PC death means you get to restart at the same level with a new (and improved) character. To save time you can reuse your character, just change the name.

[A Man In Black]

You lose a level, eh. Either that or you have to have 25,000gp lying around ready to set on fire. Dying in 3e is the opposite of all player motivations, money, wealth, screen time, not begging the Cleric for shit.

Is the 3e status quo more acceptable to you, where the raids on Citadel Impossible are punctuated by enough time to gather 25K per person or regain a lost level? It's also going to take time between raids in Crappy Less-Lethal D&D, because they have to escape the dungeon or get out of the pit, recuperate, rearm themselves, and make their way back to Citadel Impossible. It's just a matter of degree.

I think the only reason people don't do this plot already is not because the rules tell them that if they try to they can't play D&D any more, but because the rules tell them if they try, they will lose. Well, they still lose in Crappy Less-Lethal D&D. Getting dumped in the ditch is humiliating and not at all heroic. Players will want to avoid that. It completely sucks and players will and absolutely should hate when that happens, just like they hate when their characters die.

However. They will still be able to play when it happens to their characters.

Is the problem that losing doesn't take away character power? Because I'm okay with that, if something beyond humiliation and setting non-character-sheet stuff on fire is actually necessary. I think it might be overkill, though.

Some people here are saying that players might often have limited influence over character death, but I have not seen that problem. I think the no-death people see it because players stop bothering about avoiding death if you stop killing their characters.

I'm reading them, and I agree, I think K's overplaying his hand. Even I got swept up in it. That's why I wanted to refocus on an actual scratch ruleset, rather than vague hyperbole.

I disagree that removing death causes people to stop avoiding defeat. Defeat means humiliation and setback and inconvenience and financial loss and the death of others. Defeat means the plot happens and you don't get to affect it positively. Defeat is a montage at the end of Fallout where it turns out you survived but all of the people you met were murdered by raiders who were killed by super mutants who died of FEV.

Again, I could be moved (if this were actually going to go into a game instead of a thought experiment), but humiliation plus plot setback is already a pretty heavy hammer to swing.

[Shadow Balls]

You're saying break the rules in very obvious and very retarded ways, hiding behind the facade of houserules so that people do not die when they are killed.

There is really a lot wrong with this sentence.
1) "break the rules in very obvious and retarded ways"
See, the people at WOTC are fallible. I was under the impression that everyone who had ever touched any D&D product ever was aware of their retardation. If you weren't, allow me to initiate you: core casters owning everyone is not a design feature, it is a design flaw. You're just telling us "don't change the rules because the rules say X!" Didn't you take a jab at Republicans earlier? Do you find it ironic that the argument you're now presenting against change is that... it's change?

No, I find it ironic you're bringing up houserules in a RAW discussion.

Less of your houserules, more of my DMs!

2) "facade of houserules"
So, you're bitching about house rules. At the home of the Tomes.

Less of your houserules, more of my DMs!

See even here, if you don't say specifically you are talking about the Tomes, the assumption is 3.5. Or PF. Tomes are not assumed by default. This is the correct behavior for houserules.

3) "people do not die when they are killed"
And this is pretty weirdly fallacious and circular. Again. Because if you change the rules such that X does not kill you, then you don't die when X happens. And therefore, the statement "you die when you are killed" holds because you are never killed. Funny how that works.

"I shot you!" "No you didn't!"

Less of your houserules, more of my DMs!

The rest of your post is similarly stupid (and non-responsive: "LOL U R RAILROADER"), so let me make a simple request to try and... I don't know, get you focused again. What role does PC death fulfill in D&D that cannot be fulfilled by other mechanisms?

A consequence for failure that is logical, better than the alternatives from all perspectives particularly the believability of the setting, and in terms of the actual topic, which is people sitting out because they failed.

Perhaps most importantly though, it discourages the bad players. And that is a very important role, because people that seriously bring up things like warping the entire world just so they don't die when they are killed are objectively bad, objectively bad for the game, and objectively bad for the hobby. So by driving them off, you literally make tabletop gaming a better place. As is often the case, the basket weavers are the biggest points against the basket weavers.

[echoVanguard]

Is anyone reading my posts? Echo?

Of course I am. Unfortunately, there hasn't been any new angles of argument in a while - AMiB's D&D For Immortals, while at least a new approach to his position, is still a fair bit problematic in that it axes things people want from the game (some people really like wraiths, for example) and has some immersion issues (what happens if a player relentlessly hacks at the corpse of a downed non-minion NPC in a direct and stated attempt to decapitate them?). I do think it's the freshest approach to the thread so far, even though I personally disagree with it - at least it's something different than K's slow descent into madness. "YOU'RE LIVING IN A DREAM WORLD! WAKE UP, ESCAPE THIS HALL OF MIRRORS!"

I still stand by my argument (explained in great detail several pages ago) that the appropriate solution to the problem is a limited narrative control mechanic similar to Fate Points or Action Points (obviously I think our Luck Points are the best of all possible worlds, but I might be a little bit biased...). That approach leaves in all the things that people like, offers an avenue for people to not experience things they don't want to, and doesn't viscerally offend anyone.

echo

[Omegonthesane]

Is anyone reading my posts? Echo?

Of course I am. Unfortunately, there hasn't been any new angles of argument in a while - AMiB's D&D For Immortals, while at least a new approach to his position, is still a fair bit problematic in that it axes things people want from the game (some people really like wraiths, for example) and has some immersion issues (what happens if a player relentlessly hacks at the corpse of a downed non-minion NPC in a direct and stated attempt to decapitate them?).

I believe that's covered under the Coup de Grace rules, if you're doing AMiB's Immortals as mods to D&D3.5. Namely, you can indeed cut a monster's throat once they're down, they just won't automatically die unless you do that.

Funny, I remember there being much more outrage from people with actual evidence of sanity back when Lago was on about D&D defaulting to nonlethal damage for the sake of making heroes heroic, which coincidentally would fulfil the goal of making combat less lethal.

In the unlikely event my viewpoint actually adds anything: If one member of the party's being imprisoned, the GM is deliberately dicking them over, as it's perfectly reasonable to drop the hostage if you're already having the monsters run for it rather than tackle the whole party. If the entire party's been dropped, then killing every downed player isn't going to be as bad as killing only one downed player. If for some reason Team Monster is after someone specific... that's a (deeply) special case that needs handling on its own merits.

Would like to throw support mindlessly behind the suggestion of making death a metagame "Die? (Y/N)" choice made by the player once his character is categorically defeated and unable to be quickly healed.

[CapnTthePirateG]

What if we had rules for rising as an undead, which really isn't more powerful then you, once you died? You could only do this once, maybe twice, before getting killed off for real, but it might throw a bit of a buffer between "crit" and "permadeath."

[echoVanguard]

I believe that's covered under the Coup de Grace rules, if you're doing AMiB's Immortals as mods to D&D3.5. Namely, you can indeed cut a monster's throat once they're down, they just won't automatically die unless you do that.

Wow, I somehow missed that when reading his rules the first time. Still, it isn't a perfect solution, since smart enemies recognize that dead opponents can't come back.

One thing that I've become curious about over the course of this thread is what the anti-death crew thinks of 4E's solution? As far as I know from looking over the material, there isn't any effect or outcome where a combination of Remove Affliction and Raise Dead can't get the character back on their feet (except Soul Trap, which has its own set of solution conditions). Furthermore, there is apparently a clause that only characters with "an unfulfilled destiny" can be raised from the dead (apparently just PCs and plot-important NPCs) - details here.

echo

[hogarth]

Is the problem that losing doesn't take away character power? Because I'm okay with that, if something beyond humiliation and setting non-character-sheet stuff on fire is actually necessary. I think it might be overkill, though.

Isn't one of the possible consequences in your suggested system that the PCs get robbed of all their good loot? I've actually heard people say that's a fate worse than death in 3E.

[Fuchs]

Is the problem that losing doesn't take away character power? Because I'm okay with that, if something beyond humiliation and setting non-character-sheet stuff on fire is actually necessary. I think it might be overkill, though.

Isn't one of the possible consequences in your suggested system that the PCs get robbed of all their good loot? I've actually heard people say that's a fate worse than death in 3E.

Indeed. Compared to restarting at the same level with level-appropriate gear - which you can pick from a list usually, instead of having to loot it in game - is far less of a penalty than having to recover or replace your gear in game.

[DSMatticus]

in a RAW discussion

Well, there's your problem. Your reading comprehension sucks. When people are talking about how something in D&D sucks and how it should be changed, that's not a RAW discussion, is it? That is a design discussion. The difference is that the two statements look like this: "death is..." and "death should be..."

The rest of your post is... about on par with this. You got a little back on topic at the end there, except you put us back on the same cycle I had with Swordslinger for 5-10 pages. It ends like this: "time out" as punishment is totally unnecessary, counter-examples exist in and out of D&D; and the appeal to verisimilitude is more an argument for your own lack of creativity than anything else.

I think we're through here.

Is the problem that losing doesn't take away character power? Because I'm okay with that, if something beyond humiliation and setting non-character-sheet stuff on fire is actually necessary. I think it might be overkill, though.

Isn't one of the possible consequences in your suggested system that the PCs get robbed of all their good loot? I've actually heard people say that's a fate worse than death in 3E.

That's true. D&D characters need magic items to be level appropriate, some more than others. I would call that a problem in and of itself, and just personally fix it by folding enhancement bonuses into class features, and AMiB said his system needed as much:

This pseudoedition would shift much of the character power currently invested in permanent gear to inherent character power. So "losing all/most of your gear" means "going back to town to restock" or "searching for a new source of funds", not "losing 30% of your character power permanently".

Losing gear means losing bling, shinies, and supplies. It's a hit to your time, dignity, and Cool Factor, as well as loss of miscellaneous magic items, I imagine? (Depending on opponent motivation.)

[hogarth]

Oh, I missed that part.

[Swordslinger]

At the end of the day, the only consequence to permanent death is that everyone gets a shittier story. There are no consequences for the "game" part of the game and I wish people would realize that.

Sure there is.

When someone dies, everyone has to either fork over a bunch of treasure to resurrect them, or that player has to make a new character.

In the case of making a new character, you have to go through the trouble of creating a new guy, buying him equipment, picking his feats, possibly doing up a backstory, etc. That's quite a bit of work to invest and most people don't want to do that.

Also it's quite possible the DM may force you to start lower level than you were. It's usually common practice in the games I've seen to start people at either equal to or 1 level lower than the lowest guy in the group. So your punishment is that you get to be weaker than the rest of your friends or at least tied for weakest until you play a bit and catch up (3E's experience system lets you do just that).

[K]

At the end of the day, the only consequence to permanent death is that everyone gets a shittier story. There are no consequences for the "game" part of the game and I wish people would realize that.

Sure there is.

When someone dies, everyone has to either fork over a bunch of treasure to resurrect them, or that player has to make a new character.

In the case of making a new character, you have to go through the trouble of creating a new guy, buying him equipment, picking his feats, possibly doing up a backstory, etc. That's quite a bit of work to invest and most people don't want to do that.

Also it's quite possible the DM may force you to start lower level than you were. It's usually common practice in the games I've seen to start people at either equal to or 1 level lower than the lowest guy in the group. So your punishment is/i that you get to be weaker than the rest of your friends or at least tied for weakest until you play a bit and catch up (3E's experience system lets you do just that).

From a "game" standpoint, permanent death is an improvement. You get to make a new character in ten minutes that takes advantage of any new supplements that have come out since your last creation, you get to give all your treasure to the party, you get to start with new treasure that is better suited to your character than the random crap you've found, you can start with treasure possibly better for this adventure or a character better suited to solving some current problem, and you might just lose any troubling afflictions like a curse or RP penalty that was being enforced for some past bad action.

Hell, in some cases you'll personally end up with more treasure because few DMs seem to be unable to compensate for the use of expendable magic items by adding bigger drops. The fact that every PC death is bigger party treasure is just a bonus.

The cost of permanent death is only a net RP cost some of the time and a complete windfall for the player and party in terms of the "game" all of the time. Even a minor XP penalty is temporary as you've noted.

[Chamomile]

Isn't one of the possible consequences in your suggested system that the PCs get robbed of all their good loot? I've actually heard people say that's a fate worse than death in 3E.

This should probably just not be true in general. From a design perspective, gear should not be that important to your character's ability unless the flavor of people growing their power asymmetrically by killing stronger people and taking their stuff is something you want to hold onto. That's become pretty key to D&D flavor from necessity, but it doesn't really show up elsewhere, to the best of my knowledge.

[hogarth]

Isn't one of the possible consequences in your suggested system that the PCs get robbed of all their good loot? I've actually heard people say that's a fate worse than death in 3E.

This should probably just not be true in general.

I've never believed it to be true, at least in a game where the GM can arrange for more gear to flow the PCs' way.

[A Man In Black]

Wow, I somehow missed that when reading his rules the first time. Still, it isn't a perfect solution, since smart enemies recognize that dead opponents can't come back.

But murdering people isn't going to keep the evil overlord alive any longer. They're villains in a fantasy world. They exist only for heroes to come and depose them. They could kill failed heroes and there'd be more heroes, or they could dump failed heroes in the ditch and the failed heroes would come back later when they feel like they can try again.

Take K's argument down two steps. Until everyone gives up on it, the game is immortal in D&D. There is nothing the evil overlord can do to keep from being overthrown by some group of PCs, as long as the players are still interested in getting into his castle and getting that bastard. It's just a matter of whether you want that to be a series of assaults by the same people, or a series of assaults by different people. Both of them are perfectly reasonable stories, but the latter story also comes with the disruptive metagame baggage that some players may not get to play for extended periods.

How genre-savvy do you expect the villains to be?