D&D General If not death, then what?

[Helldritch]

One character's death can be but a temporary setback for the party, and even a TPK doesn't necessarily prevent another party from accomplishing the same goal. That's leaving aside the possibilities of raise dead or resurrection, which make death ... not inherently permanent.

Failing to accomplish a goal--having whatever consequence of failure happen--can and arguably should be irrevocable. That Bad Thing you were trying to prevent, you didn't prevent. The world is permanently scarred. For some people, having their character/s live to see the Bad Things happen would be worse than having them die. For others, the possibility of redemption--the possibility of mitigating That Bad Thing, or preventing it from getting worse--would be worth playing on.

I agree. But read on how death can be made permanent even 1 to 3rd tier characters. Heck, even top level characters can die forever depending on where they die. I am sure Orcus would not relinquish the souls of those that dared to challenge him on Thanatos.

But what characters failed to prevent can be mend by another group or the very same group. Failure in D&D is far from being the end. Hope is still there. But death, on the other hand, can mean full stop for a character or even a group. No second chances. But some here deny this.

 

[prabe]

I agree. But read on how death can be made permanent even 1 to 3rd tier characters. Heck, even top level characters can die forever depending on where they die. I am sure Orcus would not relinquish the souls of those that dared to challenge him on Thanatos.

But what characters failed to prevent can be mend by another group or the very same group. Failure in D&D is far from being the end. Hope is still there. But death, on the other hand, can mean full stop for a character or even a group. No second chances. But some here deny this.

Failure is just that--failure. Your inability to conceive of permanent failure does not mean it does not exist. The PCs' failure leaves permanent scars--on the world, or on them. Death is not the only thing that ends all hope.

 

[tetrasodium]

Failure is just that--failure. Your inability to conceive of permanent failure does not mean it does not exist. The PCs' failure leaves permanent scars--on the world, or on them. Death is not the only thing that ends all hope.

Those only matter if the player cares about the world beyond the world's ability to provide the next adventure. In that case you have a string the gm can ignore while continuing on or pull to deliver themselves a self inflicted wound because if the world can't provide another adventure that failure falls to the gm not the player who does not care.

 

[Helldritch]

Failure is just that--failure. Your inability to conceive of permanent failure does not mean it does not exist. The PCs' failure leaves permanent scars--on the world, or on them. Death is not the only thing that ends all hope.

For the characters? Only death can be permanent.

Kingdom destroyed? Its people dead and gone?
Nooooooooooooooo problems! Time travel is right there for you. Time travel is not in the rules? Well, check some adventures, read some books, I am confident that you will find examples, even in 5th edition mind you. You can also rebuild without those people.

Lost your familly? Ok. Raise in power until you can have them raised by you or your friendly cleric.

Lost a limb? Keep your money mate. Someday, you will get that nice replacement limb from magic. Be it from an artificer or from the regeneration spell.

Except for death, nothing can be made fully permanent. Even death can be circumvented with the right magic and if certain conditions are not met.

This is why death is and should be the ultimate thing to avoid. All the rests are just that, setbacks.

And as this gentleman said:

Those only matter if the player cares about the world beyond the world's ability to provide the next adventure. In that case you have a string the gm can ignore while continuing on or pull to deliver themselves a self inflicted wound because if the world can't provide another adventure that failure falls to the gm not the player who does not care.

 

[prabe]

For the characters? Only death can be permanent.

This is of course presuming the characters have no memories. The castle in the goldfish bowl is a surprise to them, every time.

Kingdom destroyed? Its people dead and gone?
Nooooooooooooooo problems! Time travel is right there for you. Time travel is not in the rules? Well, check some adventures, read some books, I am confident that you will find examples, even in 5th edition mind you. You can also rebuild without those people.

"Rebuild" (if possible) does imply permanent change, and time travel just allows for the possibility of screwing things up even worse.

Lost your familly? Ok. Raise in power until you can have them raised by you or your friendly cleric.

Depends on what "lost" means, yes?

Lost a limb? Keep your money mate. Someday, you will get that nice replacement limb from magic. Be it from an artificer or from the regeneration spell.

Sure. Though some people may strongly dislike having their avatar in the world maimed.

Except for death, nothing can be made fully permanent. Even death can be circumvented with the right magic and if certain conditions are not met.

The only thing that's fully permanent is the end of the game, or campaign, or whatever term you want. Nothing else is. Sometimes that's PC death, sometimes that's PC failure, sometimes it's Real Life Getting in the Way.

 

[prabe]

Those only matter if the player cares about the world beyond the world's ability to provide the next adventure. In that case you have a string the gm can ignore while continuing on or pull to deliver themselves a self inflicted wound because if the world can't provide another adventure that failure falls to the gm not the player who does not care.

I don't have any players in the campaigns I'm DMing who care that little about the game world, but I think I disagree with you that player apathy is the GM's fault.

 

[tetrasodium]

I don't have any players in the campaigns I'm DMing who care that little about the game world, but I think I disagree with you that player apathy is the GM's fault.

You've got that backwards or missed the self inflicted wound. If a player doesn't care & just wants to show up to kill stuff even if the world is falling apart it doesn't matter if the gm does things to the world that the apathetic player's PC should care about because it's just more plot to devour right up until the GM actually pulls the string that apathetic player cares about and says something like "I got no adventure this week guys". Actually pulling that string reflects poorly on the GM not the player who didn't care while the world was burning from fires they were contributing to

 

[prabe]

You've got that backwards or missed the self inflicted wound. If a player doesn't care & just wants to show up to kill stuff even if the world is falling apart it doesn't matter if the gm does things to the world that the apathetic player's PC should care about because it's just more plot to devour right up until the GM actually pulls the string that apathetic player cares about and says something like "I got no adventure this week guys". Actually pulling that string reflects poorly on the GM not the player who didn't care while the world was burning from fires they were contributing to

If the PCs allow the world to burn around them, it's the GM's fault when it burns up? That's what you seem to be saying--that no matter how much the PCs ignore the world, it's the GM's duty to keep coming up with stuff. Like, if the players run out of setting to save--because they didn't care enough about it to save it--isn't that the players' fault?

 

[Helldritch]

If the PCs allow the world to burn around them, it's the GM's fault when it burns up? That's what you seem to be saying--that no matter how much the PCs ignore the world, it's the GM's duty to keep coming up with stuff. Like, if the players run out of setting to save--because they didn't care enough about it to save it--isn't that the players' fault?

If all adventures are about the end of the world/kingdom or all that is good. You need to find more scenari.

 

[prabe]

If all adventures are about the end of the world/kingdom or all that is good. You need to find more scenari.

At some point, even if the world doesn't end, you run out of things to do--sooner if you keep screwing accessible pooches. I don't think that's the GM's fault.