D&D General If not death, then what?

[Helldritch]

Why does the lack of random, permanent, irrevocable death create, as you say, "infinite plot armor"? That implies a level of indestructibility and guaranteed success which is not present, at least, not in my game; it very very strongly connotes that you see every attempted action as instantly successful with no real effort put in, which is likewise not true at all of my game or most no-death/low-death games (again, noting mine is technically the latter.)

I expect players to work with me and exercise good judgment. Being a ridiculous murderhobo who exploits genre conventions, flaunts logic, and dives headlong into danger "because the DM won't kill me, he said so!" will result in dead characters, because I won't tolerate that kind of behavior at my table. Being reckless because you have done the work to show your character has poor impulse control and a thirst for danger? Sure, knock yourself out (perhaps literally), so long as you aren't being exploitative. But if you cross that line into exploiting my goodwill, you will find I am not nearly so accommodating.

I, by intent, run a very magical world. It is also very mundane, which despite many claims otherwise is not a contradiction, because I work to include the lives of ordinary people and the ways magic can serve small domestic purposes (e.g., the party's wizard/artificer ally, Hafsa, earned enough to become independently well-to-do, not quite "rich" per se but definitely well-off, by developing self-heating crockery that is reasonably affordable, allowing plates of food to stay warm and even allowing cooking vessels that require no external heat, a huge boon in an arid/desert setting.)


So, ends other than death simply do not exist? That's an unusually strong claim to make.

For the bolded part.
So if I play like you want me to play I get plot armor and will pretty much be able to do anything.
But if you do not like my style of playing, I am done for?

Nice to know that you DM this way.

For the first paragraph.
Again, death is the only sure way (most of the time) that a character will not overcome. All others can. A failure is just an other chance to go at it. Whatever the goal was. You failed? Try it again mate. You died? Well, no second, third, fourth or Nth time this time. See post #279 to see how death can be made permanent even in a magical world by RAW.

 

[Helldritch]

So... character death is better than altering the story based on loss, because I get to play a completely different character with completely different goals? Again, you aren't defending why things like losing a kingdom or seeing the countryside burn are "not consequences" but playing a new character with no background, just like the other character with no background, is a consequence. I'd still be at the table playing if instead of dying my character was cursed too. And I'd still be remembered for my deeds, and possibly for that cool story of how I handled being cursed. Instead of disconnecting from every plot thread and restarting the game. I'm still at the table either way, so what's the difference?

Depends on the circumstances.
But again, a curse can be removed. A limb replaced or regrown. A lost kingdom can be fought over and won back. A loved one can be raised from the dead or you might fight for its soul. But if you permanently die before you can do those thing, you truly reach tragedy. All the rests are "relatively minor" setbacks. You still get a chance to have a shot at it. With perma death, as in my post #279, you lost. It sucks for sure, that is why you must strive not to die. You want to still have your shot at whatever goal you have. All hope is not lost. But if you are permanently dead. All hope is lost.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

For the bolded part.
So if I play like you want me to play I get plot armor and will pretty much be able to do anything.
But if you do not like my style of playing, I am done for?

Nice to know that you DM this way.

If your style of gameplay is exploitative, yes.

Do you think that a player being exploitative is an innocent and benign thing? That is absolutely NOT true. An exploitative player is being a jerk. I don't tolerate exploitation or coercion at my table.

If you are genuine and enthusiastic and communicate with me, acting as a team player and not a selfish jerk, I will support whatever you want to do to the ends of the Earth. I have gladly reworked classes, dug up third party materials, rewritten mechanics, and wholesale invented new subsystems purely to support the things my players find fun. I consider this part of my duty to them. Their joy is dependent on my willingness to help them, so I must do my best to support that joy.

If you  exploit that effort—if you treat me as a thing to be  used rather than a person to talk to and work with—then yes, I feel absolutely justified letting you hoist yourself on your own petard. I make no pretense of doing otherwise. I constantly ask for my players' feedback, listen to their commentary, and review my actions for fault or even just imperfection. If the player wants something, they need only ask me, and I will work to make it happen 99.9% of the time, though it may not end up being exactly the same as what the player envisioned.

So, if you want to play someone reckless, awesome, I support that, though be forewarned that recklessness tends to lead to upset or frustrated players in the group, so it's best used in moderation. (This actually did come up in game: a player had put the party in legitimate danger multiple times because he chose to skip any talking phase and immediately draw his axes and start murderizing. We had an entirely respectful talk, he and I, and he agreed to tone it down a little.)

But if you specifically throw yourself into lethal danger, taking objectively stupid risks solely because "well you said you wouldn't kill my character!" That's exploiting me. Don't do that. You will be warned, once. After that? The actual consequences of your actions will be what they will be. If you get your character killed because you believed you could obviate any and all lethal risks due to me not killing characters, that's exploitative, no less than if someone tried to exploit rules that allowed a character to do infinite damage in a single hit.

For the first paragraph.
Again, death is the only sure way (most of the time) that a character will not overcome. All others can. A failure is just an other chance to go at it. Whatever the goal was. You failed? Try it again mate. You died? Well, no second, third, fourth or Nth time this time. See post #279 to see how death can be made permanent even in a magical world by RAW.

You cannot always try again. That is my point. Some things just literally do not allow you to try again. Even 5e rules say this.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

With perma death, as in my post #279, you lost. It sucks for sure, that is why you must strive not to die. You want to still have your shot at whatever goal you have. All hope is not lost. But if you are permanently dead. All hope is lost.

And I just straight-up reject this. This is not true.

Death does not always mean all hope is lost in fantasy. And there are other things that can be lost that would, in fact, mean all hope is lost. That nothing can take things back to the way they were. The world is changed, and no force, not even the gods themselves, can reverse it.

Death is only final if you choose for it to be final. That is exactly the same as all other consequences: they are only final if we choose for them to be final. Always. There is no difference between the two.

 

[Helldritch]

And I just straight-up reject this. This is not true.

Death does not always mean all hope is lost in fantasy. And there are other things that can be lost that would, in fact, mean all hope is lost. That nothing can take things back to the way they were. The world is changed, and no force, not even the gods themselves, can reverse it.

Death is only final if you choose for it to be final. That is exactly the same as all other consequences: they are only final if we choose for them to be final. Always. There is no difference between the two.

Ok, reject it or not, it IS true nonetheless. By RAW and RAI.
The big bad level 7 necromancer with a few skeletons and henchmen fight a level 5 group. They were reckless and simply underestimated the strength of the opfor.

Cleric dies to a skeletons, second skeleton double taps as per the order it gets and the following henchmen, a guard finishes the cleric. Comes the Necromancer's turn and he raises the cleric as a zombie. That cleric is toasted. Dead forever. Not only did the group lost its cleric, but it will not have the money to ever raise him from the death as the only solutions are two level 9 spells! Death, in this case and in many others can and should be final. This is according to the rules. And in this case, the necro is played not only according to what he should do, but also in how he would act RP wise, Tactically wise and exactly how a player would have played if it would have been him running that necro. It removes a foe from being raised. It adds a new threat to the group and removes potential healing from the group. Three major gains that might ensure the Necro's victory. I play monsters and foes with deadly efficiency. Stupid monsters are played stupidly as they should be. But intelligent monsters and foes will act according to their capacity and understanding of what the characters and their ally can, might and have shown to be able to do.

Of course if you at your table change the rules, go ahead. But in this case, you are not using any rules that are in the PHB or DMG. You are houseruling. And do not get me wrong, houseruling is fine. But do not pretend it is playing as intended or written.

I never said death was always final. I say that death is the only consequence that can be final. There is a big difference. And it is this fact alone that makes it worthwhile. At least for us.

All other setbacks can always be overcome at some point. All hope is not lost. You can always try again. It might be hard, but you can at least try. But death? Not always so. Definitely not always so.

 

[Helldritch]

You cannot always try again. That is my point. Some things just literally do not allow you to try again. Even 5e rules say this.

Yes, there is death. It is the only thing. Remove the "s" at things like I did and we finally reached an agreement.

All other setbacks can be overcome. Always. Might be hard, you might fail. But they can be. There are some death that can't be overcome.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I just GMed a session of Prince Valiant. Death was never on the line, because as the rules say (p ) "Normally death is not an important part of Prince Valiant."

The PCs did suffer several losses: they led their warband to reinforce an army under attack, and while their initial assault on the flank succeeded, their attempt to join up with their allies failed, and one of their number was knocked unconscious in the fray. A second PC, who had ridden ahead of the assault to engage the enemy leader in one-on-one combat, found himself isolated from his allies as a result and was in danger of being captured. Only good luck allowed his companions to rally their forces and allow him to be extricated safely from his predicament.

When the PCs and their warband fell back with their allies to the latter's castle, they worked out some sort of nefariousness was afoot. The third PC, who is the marshall of their military order, was surveying the castle's defences in anticipation of a possible night-time attack when he was shot by an arrow, and then narrowly succeeded in stopping a spy, who had infiltrated via the postern, from opening the main gate.

Then the word spread that the infant son of the NPC lord of the castle was missing; so was the suspected traitor. The PCs failed to persuade the lord not to ride forth in search of his son; so two of them rode out with him. Their tracker was unsuccessful, and so it took them several hours of falling false trails through the hills before they saw their quarry on the plain. They were able to catch most of them with hard riding, and the vainglorious PC took a leader NPC prisoner: but the attempt by the marshall to catch the traitor with the son failed, and the latter made it to a friendly castle.

In the meantime, the night-time assault n the friendly castle took place, with the third PC - who is the weakest at generalship - leading the defence. He failed in that endeavour, and so the castle fell - although he was able to escape through a secret tunnel with only his wife, his hunter companion, and the teenage daughter of the castle's lord (the sister of the kidnapped brother). His scout was successful in leading them to join up with the others on the plain between the two castles.

The PCs then decided to retreat to a third castle, which is garrisoned by their soldiers, to interrogate their prisoner and perhaps then negotiate an exchange of hostages. The roll of their hunter (guiding them through the hills to the north) vs the NPC army's hunter (trying to track them down) was tied, and so they were spotted as the PC helped his wife scramble up one of the last of the ridges. So then it was a sheer contest of speed: and the PCs lost.

We ended the session there; the next session will begin with finding out what happens to them as their pursuers close on them just outside the walls of the castle where their own soldiers are the garrison.

Although the session I've described was resolved using a different system from D&D, I don't think there's any reason in principle why D&D can't similarly put things at stake other than PC death.

There isnt, you're right. But I don't want to play D&D that way. Other games, awesome, no problem. For me, largely due to my personal history, D&D is different.

For people who do want to play D&D that way, I will never agree with you, but I respect your game and your choices.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Why does the lack of random, permanent, irrevocable death create, as you say, "infinite plot armor"? That implies a level of indestructibility and guaranteed success which is not present, at least, not in my game; it very very strongly connotes that you see every attempted action as instantly successful with no real effort put in, which is likewise not true at all of my game or most no-death/low-death games (again, noting mine is technically the latter.)

I expect players to work with me and exercise good judgment. Being a ridiculous murderhobo who exploits genre conventions, flaunts logic, and dives headlong into danger "because the DM won't kill me, he said so!" will result in dead characters, because I won't tolerate that kind of behavior at my table. Being reckless because you have done the work to show your character has poor impulse control and a thirst for danger? Sure, knock yourself out (perhaps literally), so long as you aren't being exploitative. But if you cross that line into exploiting my goodwill, you will find I am not nearly so accommodating.

I, by intent, run a very magical world. It is also very mundane, which despite many claims otherwise is not a contradiction, because I work to include the lives of ordinary people and the ways magic can serve small domestic purposes (e.g., someone gained full financial independence and an income she could retire on via developing self-heating crockery, a crazy useful tool in the semi-arid to full desert Tarrakhuna region.) A world where the boundaries of life and death are fuzzy: the Spirit World exists, a layer of the mortal world that one must be trained to look into, where restless souls linger before passing on. As a result, resurrection is often (but not always) possible, and there are strange forces and unknown magics out in the desert, forgotten secrets and alien technologies which might permit things heretofore considered impossible.

That freedom to act comes with the great responsibility to use it very carefully. To justify what I do and why, in a way that is intuitive and reasonable but not so blindingly obvious that you can just see it instantly (well, not every time anyway!) Or, failing that, to make a quest of it: why IS this seemingly-impossible situation happening? We explore these results together. If a character dies, Death may make his bargain to restore them (a default thing in DW). Or the detested fiendish heritage of the character could rear its "ugly" head (actually quite handsome, for a half-devil/half-demon) and cling to life, but with Consequences for the character, e.g. "Oh, you died, young Prince. But you remember how your...condition...was one where you were half-human, half-devil, half-demon? I'm afraid it was life finally balancing the scales...because your human half is what died. You are now a full outsider, just with certain grandfathered-in perks, shall we say." Or a chorus of voices, those who depend on the PC as the last of their kind that can free them from their self-imposed exile, expend part of their own existence to preserve him, for without him they are lost.

Etc. These are not, at least to my mind, "plot armor." They are not bad consequences being wished away because such cannot be borne. Instead, it is something valuable to the PC being lost forever (unlike fiendish power, humanity cannot be simply obtained with the right kind of pact!), or a terrible price extracted from those the party desperately wishes to save, or the world itself bearing the scars of failure and defeat to forever remind the player "sure, you lived, but at what cost?"


So, ends other than death simply do not exist? That's an unusually strong claim to make.

That said though, if what you want is for your character to stay dead if they die, awesome, you fit in perfectly. Because that means every time your character dies it has your active approval. I won't hold your fellows to that standard, but I can respect it as the standard for your stuff. That might make it harder to produce a narrative you would find engaging, but there are paths that can be taken--perhaps your character's story is more the story of a mantle he or she bears, similar to the Green Lantern rings or Captain America and his shield, where the death of one bearer does not totally snip the threads, but does significantly affect things nonetheless?

A few thoughts (apologies; I don't do multi-quote):

You said you play Dungeon World. I have no issues with any of the things you're talking about if you're not playing D&D, and would happily play in such a game. I also have no problem with any of this if you are playing D&D, I just wouldn't participate in that game. I have made this clear several times. My reasons have to do with my personal history and what D&D means to me. I explained them in the other death thread.

About plot armor: characters in stories often have terrible, terrible things happen to them, things I would never want anyone to experience. Plot armor doesn't protect against hardship (even extreme hardship), only death. So from my point of view, PCs in your games do have "infinite plot armor" as long as they want it. The game (and many other non-D&D games) encourages this, and per my previous point, that great for you, and great for me if I'm playing one of those games. I played a great short campaign of Monster of the Week recently. Never expected to die, didn't miss it, had a great time. Different expectations.

I don't play D&D for story; that emerges through play. I play for challenge and skilled play, and to run a character through a verisimilitude-based world and experience that world through the PC, for as long as I can. I play other games for different reasons, and that's a lot of fun too.

I really am sorry that my definition of plot armor didn't come across. Based on your response, it must have seemed quite insulting, and that was not my intent. I have no judgement against your style, at all. Again, I apologize.

 

[Chaosmancer]

The #1 issue i have with no character death is simply that the idea breaks my sense of verisimilitude. You need to be able to die sometimes, because sometimes bad things happen and you're not going to make it. If that can't happen, the world ceases to feel real to me, and THAT'S why none of the other stuff in the game matters to me anymore. Because you're no longer a person in the world who might have a really bad day or make a big mistake and buy the farm. You're a protagonist with infinite plot armor, whose special story must go on. I'm not telling a story first, I'm a person in a fantasy world first.

Incidentally, while I allow raise dead and similar effects in my games, it is much harder to accomplish at my table, and I personally never do it for my own PCs. Dead is dead if I have my way. That way, every PC's story has a beginning, and an end, and that mortality makes it worthwhile.

I obviously can't change that, but again, it isn't like the world of DnD doesn't have MASSIVE amounts of resources for "not dying". It doesn't break verismilitude for me that the Chosen of God X is rescued from death by God X. It doesn't break Verismilitude that an archdevil reaches out to make a deal to a desperate soul. It doesn't break verismilitude that the dragon wants magically bound slaves instead of six corpses of unseasoned meat.

And, add to that, if you keep playing the game as normal this comes up like... twice a campaign if you have a long-running campaign. So, to me, it doesn't feel like "infinite plot armor" it feels like... you got lucky, but you can't count on that happening again. Death is rare enough as long as no one starts trying to suicide their character, that it isn't like every session a miracle happens.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I obviously can't change that, but again, it isn't like the world of DnD doesn't have MASSIVE amounts of resources for "not dying". It doesn't break verismilitude for me that the Chosen of God X is rescued from death by God X. It doesn't break Verismilitude that an archdevil reaches out to make a deal to a desperate soul. It doesn't break verismilitude that the dragon wants magically bound slaves instead of six corpses of unseasoned meat.

And, add to that, if you keep playing the game as normal this comes up like... twice a campaign if you have a long-running campaign. So, to me, it doesn't feel like "infinite plot armor" it feels like... you got lucky, but you can't count on that happening again. Death is rare enough as long as no one starts trying to suicide their character, that it isn't like every session a miracle happens.

But, you CAN count on it again, every time it happens, whether its once or a dozen times. And your players know it. I know it. Something like what you're saying could easily happen in my game; it sounds awesome. But if you can count on it, it ceases to have meaning for me. That's just how I feel. I'm happy that your way works for you though.