D&D 5E [+] Questions for zero character death players and DMs…

[Maxperson]

Seems fairly reasonable, though I would add that the former group tends to also want an interesting story to emerge from their gameplay.

And that's the storytelling that the first sentence of the 5e PHB is talking about. Stories emerging from game play, not the predetermined story with no death and everyone reaching the goal that @Chaosmancer is talking about. We know this because death is on the table by default. You literally have to change 5e default assumptions to get to his playstyle, which is absolutely fine. If that's how his group likes to play, they are doing it right.

 

[Maxperson]

But there are other, more important, stories in my game that aren't emergent. They are a cooperative tale created by players and GMs that explore deeper things that aren't tied to the mechanics of the game. When my war torn fighter stumbles back home and collapses into the arms of his spose, finally releasing all the anguish he has been bottling up in his stoic turn as the party lead. That's not a challenge. There werent any die rollls, and it's hyper specific to that one individual character.

Yes. That's roleplaying to me, though, not predetermined stories that you are guaranteed to reach. My character have wants, desires, personal goals, family, etc. and I roleplay those out. I just might never make it home to my spouse and die in that war. Perhaps my companions and new character bring her the news.

If that same stoic fighter died to tetanus from a rusty nail on the way home, I lose that thread of story. The family he has at home, the relationships he has with his friends, the rivalries he has built with adversaries....it's all gone.

Yes and no. Let's go a bit further with the above example. Maybe your new character and old character's companions bring the news to the spouse. They console her and help her keep her farm running until she can hire some new farmhands to keep her financially stable. You guys are introduced to some of your old character's friends and maybe develop a bond with one, leading to the revelation that his uncle is cursed with lycanthropy, so you guys set out to find a cure... It doesn't have to be all gone unless you choose for it to be.

Story doesn't rely on one character staying alive for the entire time, and that death to the rusty nail will lead to new and just as exciting stories if you let it. The story won't be exactly as the first character's would have been, but that doesn't mean that it has to be lesser or can't be greater. As long as character death is fairly rare, it won't disrupt things too much and will just add to the story.

 

[Charlaquin]

And in both of your cases, the story you are talking about comes from the actions in the game. Like "Hey, remember that time your gnome got mad and bullrushed the duregar off the ledge and into the lava pit, forcing the minions to flee? That was awesome!" or "Remember that tower we took from the mimic king and built a sandwich shop?"

I have those stories in my game too, the emergent ones that only happened because of the way the action happened to shake out.

But there are other, more important, stories in my game that aren't emergent. They are a cooperative tale created by players and GMs that explore deeper things that aren't tied to the mechanics of the game. When my war torn fighter stumbles back home and collapses into the arms of his spose, finally releasing all the anguish he has been bottling up in his stoic turn as the party lead. That's not a challenge. There werent any die rollls, and it's hyper specific to that one individual character.

But, see, those kinds of stories also emerge from gameplay in my games.

If that same stoic fighter died to tetanus from a rusty nail on the way home, I lose that thread of story. The family he has at home, the relationships he has with his friends, the rivalries he has built with adversaries....it's all gone.
If I have to create a new character it's like I take an eraser to a giant blackboard of story threads I've developed over time (some emergent from the mechanics of the game and others weaved into the story) and have to start over with a blank slate of New Guys story.

Yes, and I can certainly understand why you might not like that. To me, that loss is a powerful story too. But, yeah, it’s not for everyone.

I fully recognize almost everyone's game develops story, but emergent story is not the same as authored story, and authored story is what you can't get from a boardgame and is what I play RPGs for.

Authorship is definitely something I’m not interested in from D&D, but I don’t think the kinds of rich narrative stories you’re talking about require authorship. They can emerge too.

 

[JiffyPopTart]

Yes. That's roleplaying to me, though, not predetermined stories that you are guaranteed to reach. My character have wants, desires, personal goals, family, etc. and I roleplay those out. I just might never make it home to my spouse and die in that war. Perhaps my companions and new character bring her the news.

Yes and no. Let's go a bit further with the above example. Maybe your new character and old character's companions bring the news to the spouse. They console her and help her keep her farm running until she can hire some new farmhands to keep her financially stable. You guys are introduced to some of your old character's friends and maybe develop a bond with one, leading to the revelation that his uncle is cursed with lycanthropy, so you guys set out to find a cure... It doesn't have to be all gone unless you choose for it to be.

Story doesn't rely on one character staying alive for the entire time, and that death to the rusty nail will lead to new and just as exciting stories if you let it. The story won't be exactly as the first character's would have been, but that doesn't mean that it has to be lesser or can't be greater. As long as character death is fairly rare, it won't disrupt things too much and will just add to the story.

Agreed, but the more new characters glom onto old characters theeads the more it feels very artificial. A brother coming in to replace all of a killed characters stories rings false unless that brother was already established in the fiction.

The big difficulty is a TPK that sunders almost all the threads of authored story and completely derails a campaign.

It's less jarring to me to convert a TPK to a different defeat than it is to try to reboot a campaign from that moment in time with a completely new cast.

 

[James Gasik]

You know, just because circumstances contrive to have our heroes not die at this time, doesn't mean the story is "authored". That would imply everyone is following a script.

A very large chunk of fantasy genre is predicated on tales of epic heroes who constantly escape brushes with death, often by the most eyebrow raising coincidences and contrivances. Extending a little of that "narrative luck" to the player characters from time to time to keep the adventure going doesn't seem all that alien or foreign to me, especially since all kinds of other bad things usually happen to the heroes at every turn.

And death, by the way, is most assuredly not permanent in D&D. The Gods can bring you back to life if they please, and several D&D novels include examples of this (Miltiades the Undead Paladin, or Gwydion the Quick, just off the top of my head).

 

[tetrasodium]

And in both of your cases, the story you are talking about comes from the actions in the game. Like "Hey, remember that time your gnome got mad and bullrushed the duregar off the ledge and into the lava pit, forcing the minions to flee? That was awesome!" or "Remember that tower we took from the mimic king and built a sandwich shop?"

I have those stories in my game too, the emergent ones that only happened because of the way the action happened to shake out.

But there are other, more important, stories in my game that aren't emergent. They are a cooperative tale created by players and GMs that explore deeper things that aren't tied to the mechanics of the game. When my war torn fighter stumbles back home and collapses into the arms of his spose, finally releasing all the anguish he has been bottling up in his stoic turn as the party lead. That's not a challenge. There werent any die rollls, and it's hyper specific to that one individual character.

If that same stoic fighter died to tetanus from a rusty nail on the way home, I lose that thread of story. The family he has at home, the relationships he has with his friends, the rivalries he has built with adversaries....it's all gone.

If I have to create a new character it's like I take an eraser to a giant blackboard of story threads I've developed over time (some emergent from the mechanics of the game and others weaved into the story) and have to start over with a blank slate of New Guys story.

I fully recognize almost everyone's game develops story, but emergent story is not the same as authored story, and authored story is what you can't get from a boardgame and is what I play RPGs for.

Spoiler: Author:

Author comes from the Latin word auctorem, meaning "founder, master, leader." Bow down to the author! Well, no need for that, just make sure the author gets credit. Author usually refers to a professional writer. In fact, author can be used interchangeably with the word writer. But author packs a little more punch — an author is involved in the creation of the work and generating the ideas behind it; strictly speaking, a writer could just execute the written product.

Middle English (in the sense ‘a person who invents or causes something’): from Old French autor, from Latin auctor, from augere ‘increase, originate, promote’. The spelling with th arose in the 15th century, and perhaps became established under the influence of authentic

You seem to be using a very unique definition of "authoring" in order to apply it to a team game like d&d...

I literally had to tell a player that my game was not source material for or subject to their self insert writings & ban them from creating a characte rthat was intended for that because she was incredibly disruptive playing a character who existed in hammerspace most of the table time but expected to conform to things written in isolation away from the table. Despite that hard line in session zero & before the player recently declared "bob wants to serve his patron and do what they want/ask of him, so she can gain more power to be able to protect his family and her current group. But also, he wants to honor her blue dragon progenitor/his village by sharing his knowledge and helping people that need it. Its all about gaining more power and being stronger so he can use that for good." but didn't lift a finger or even speak up when the group was busy murderhoboing themselves away from the prepared adventures till they were finally banished & literally no part of that story has been reflected in any of the player's actions at the table. I can't throw plot hooks at them because they are ignored if they don't perfectly align with a story written sometime when we aren't actually at the table playing d&d. "Authored story" is what you get from a solo activity like writing a story not playing a team game with other players under a GM who is responsible for all of their players rather than the Author at the table.

Although I can't find the quote (suspect it was a podcast) Jim butcher once got asked if he plays dresden files rpg being the author of the dresden files books. His response was to explain how he would be the worst nightmare of a player since anything the GM says is different than he wants it to be when something is happening would be exactly what he says & that he could make it that later if he felt it was important. That's why d&d is not a place for someone authoring a story about their character.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Agreed, but the more new characters glom onto old characters theeads the more it feels very artificial. A brother coming in to replace all of a killed characters stories rings false unless that brother was already established in the fiction.

The big difficulty is a TPK that sunders almost all the threads of authored story and completely derails a campaign.

It's less jarring to me to convert a TPK to a different defeat than it is to try to reboot a campaign from that moment in time with a completely new cast.

I totally get that. If authored stories in D&D are your jam, you cannot have an unexpected TPK.

 

[overgeeked]

Although I can't find the quote (suspect it was a podcast) Jim butcher once got asked if he plays dresden files rpg being the author of the dresden files books. His response was to explain how he would be the worst nightmare of a player since anything the GM says is different than he wants it to be when something is happening would be exactly what he says & that he could make it that later if he felt it was important. That's why d&d is not a place for someone authoring a story about their character.

Exactly. And that's exactly what you get when someone shows up to your table with a 50-page backstory for a 1st-level character with 0 XP. That's not playing an RPG. That's writing a story and trying to force someone else to act it out for you.

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

So can we sum the thread up this way?

Some people play DnD because they like the mechanical system and want to "beat" challenges in it. They need character death for the challenges to work.

Some people play DnD because they want to tell interesting stories. The mechanics of the game are used to develop that story. They do not need character death for the stories to work.

Also:
Some people play DnD because they like the mechanical system and want to "beat" challenges in it. They do not need character death for the challenges to work.

 

[Vaalingrade]

Exactly. And that's exactly what you get when someone shows up to your table with a 50-page backstory for a 1st-level character with 0 XP. That's not playing an RPG. That's writing a story and trying to force someone else to act it out for you.

You don't act out the backstory.