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

[Charlaquin]

And I think everyone here would agree with that.

No one is suggesting that the DM must plan how the narrative must ultimately play out.

But, again, having DM authored story doesn't require that either. Creating an adventure is, ultimately, a DM authored story. You have plot, you have setting and you have character. That's a story. That you don't necessarily know how the story will end doesn't make it not a story. It's still a story. And, unless death is the only ultimate ending that is possible, then taking death off the table in no way changes the fact that a story can still have multiple results.

You don’t have a plot without a beginning, middle, and end. That’s… what makes up a plot.

However, you cannot have a game of D&D where the DM just sits down, no setting, no plot, nothing, and asks the players, okay, what are we going to do? There are games where you absolutely CAN do this. But D&D isn't one of them. D&D leans really heavily into the DM setting up pretty much everything and that includes plot and story.

No, but you can have a game of D&D where the DM plans a setting, with interesting people and things in it but not plot or events planned out and asks the players what they’re going to do. And those games are the ones I find I tend to enjoy most.

 

[Charlaquin]

I agree, but I can see how it is possible to interpret a statement like "A DM should never have a plan for the story" as being against plans as simple as "The players learn about the evil cult, the players find the evil cult, the players stop the evil cult"

Yeah, that is more plan than I prefer for the DM to have. Plan an evil cult that exists in the setting, absolutely. Plan clues that might be able to point the PCs to the evil cult if they find them, sure. But I prefer the DM doesn’t plan for us to find or stop the evil cult. Maybe we will, maybe we won’t, that’s part of what we play to find out.

 

[Hussar]

You don’t have a plot without a beginning, middle, and end. That’s… what makes up a plot.

No, but you can have a game of D&D where the DM plans a setting, with interesting people and things in it but not plot or events planned out and asks the players what they’re going to do. And those games are the ones I find I tend to enjoy most.

I obviously disagree. You when you have a beginning, middle, and end, you have a narrative. But, you don't have a plot.

The plot of a story is the reason behind why that story is being told. The plot of Star Wars is to stop Darth Vader from using the Death Star to take over the galaxy (ok, that's a bit reductionist, but, you get the point). Obi-Wan cutting off some dude's arm in the Cantina isn't really part of the plot at all.

But, the point is, once you've got the DM who plas a setting, fills it with interesting people (how are they interesting? Because, by and large, they are going to drive play) and things you have a story. That's what a story IS.

The notion that story=a complete lockstep railroad where the DM dictates every single event is far too restrictive a definition of story. That's not what a story is. If you have a plot, character and setting, you have a story. And just because you have a story doesn't mean that every single detail must be nailed down beforehand.

You prefer a more open story and that's groovy. But, dragging this back to the original point about character death, removing character death as a possibility does not require the DM to suddenly dictate every single element of the game. It simply means that that particular narrative - the character dying, isn't on the table. Is it somewhat less open than otherwise? Technically I suppose. But, infinite endings -1 isn't really much of a restriction.

 

[Charlaquin]

You prefer a more open story and that's groovy. But, dragging this back to the original point about character death, removing character death as a possibility does not require the DM to suddenly dictate every single element of the game. It simply means that that particular narrative - the character dying, isn't on the table. Is it somewhat less open than otherwise? Technically I suppose. But, infinite endings -1 isn't really much of a restriction.

Clearly we have different understandings of what “story,” “plot,” and “narrative” mean, I don’t think there’s much value to be had arguing over that. You seem to understand what I meant, so it’s fine.

I agree with you that taking character death off the table doesn’t require the DM to dictate every element of the game/story/whatever. I think when people say that, they are being hyperbolic. What they are trying to express is that, for them, it exposes the artifice in a way they don’t find tolerable. It makes the game feel like acting out a narrative instead of exploring an organic world. Or, to bring back my earlier mountain analogy, it feels like getting a helicopter ride to the top of the mountain.

 

[Chaosmancer]

I didn’t say you need a pre-planned story to know you don’t want the story to go down a path where a given character dies. I said you need a pre-planned story to kill a character for a specific story purpose.

I'd still say that isn't true. Because once you are in the moment, you can see what the death for that character could mean. If they want to die by leaping from the tower and powerbombing the evil cleric into the portal to hell to stop the invasion, they absolutely have killed their character for a specific story purpose, and none of us needed to plan that.

Anyway, it’s perfectly fine and valid that you all (would have) decided not to let that character die there. It just wouldn’t have been my choice, and I actually think that the party having a member they all knew and cared about die right away in pursuit of saving a child is a great story. Personally, I would have wanted to go down the route of letting that death happen (if the character had died), and making that part of the story.

But that isn't the tone of the game (the DM's twist on the mission revealed what was really going on, all set up by our mentor who he has crafted for all of us to hate. To give you an idea, the mentor insists on being called "Bardalicious" We have all almost stabbed him already.) so it wouldn't have really fit into what we want to do with the story.

And it certainly would be annoying for me, since I had to work with the DM and the other players quite extensively to make this character and fit them into the world. (briefly, the DM made a world where magic was illegal, so half the party immediately wanted to play mages. I wanted to play a barbarian elf, and was told that my people are basically a religious commune that absolutely despised magic. Which... I had to figure out how to square those circles, because I was not interested in playing a character who would kill or betray the party after the first mission, but neither the DM nor I felt it made since to make these people pro-magic, so many discussions were had)

 

[Hussar]

What they are trying to express is that, for them, it exposes the artifice in a way they don’t find tolerable.

Well, fair enough.

Although in a + thread for explaining zero character death games, it seems like an odd choice to continously bang the drum that such games aren't tolerable.

 

[JiffyPopTart]

Clearly we have different understandings of what “story,” “plot,” and “narrative” mean, I don’t think there’s much value to be had arguing over that. You seem to understand what I meant, so it’s fine.

I agree with you that taking character death off the table doesn’t require the DM to dictate every element of the game/story/whatever. I think when people say that, they are being hyperbolic. What they are trying to express is that, for them, it exposes the artifice in a way they don’t find tolerable. It makes the game feel like acting out a narrative instead of exploring an organic world. Or, to bring back my earlier mountain analogy, it feels like getting a helicopter ride to the top of the mountain.

Hypothetical question.

If you played in my original 5e campaign (ran from the beginning of the release for about 4 years) for the entire length of the story and never lost a character would you feel slighted that death wasn't an option?

Would you feel differently knowing the following?

Players 1, 2, and 3 in my campaign never died to force a story rescue. Players 4, 5, and 6 quit during the campaign so their characters just left the story. Player 7 lost two characters (both in battle) and chose to make new ones rather than keep the old ones going. Player 8 retired a character for story reasons, chose death for a second (to make a suicide run at saving Player 7s), and retired a third when they stopped playing.

In 4 years and out of 12 characters there were zero times the players chose to keep their character alive even though they had the option to use it.

I feel like people are picturing something different than what is really happening in games with no death. Players aren't playing hopscotch on lava, flicking dragons on the nose to annoy them, or strapping gunpowder barrels to themselves to charge into goblin hordes with impunity.

No death generally means I'm not double tapping you while you are down, or if I roll double crits behind the screen for my giant it becomes a crit and a miss, or a subtle adjustment downward of a DC when the party is in rough shape. I only had 4 deaths in my game but I had thousands of micro adjustments behind the screen to keep things exciting but not necessarily deadly.

 

[Charlaquin]

Hypothetical question.

If you played in my original 5e campaign (ran from the beginning of the release for about 4 years) for the entire length of the story and never lost a character would you feel slighted that death wasn't an option?

If my character just didn’t die, I wouldn’t be bothered. Unless I suspected you had been fudging to keep them from dying.

No death generally means I'm not double tapping you while you are down, or if I roll double crits behind the screen for my giant it becomes a crit and a miss, or a subtle adjustment downward of a DC when the party is in rough shape. I only had 4 deaths in my game but I had thousands of micro adjustments behind the screen to keep things exciting but not necessarily deadly.

Oof. Yeah, no, if I knew you were doing that I would be very upset.

 

[Maxperson]

If my character just didn’t die, I wouldn’t be bothered. Unless I suspected you had been fudging to keep them from dying.

Oof. Yeah, no, if I knew you were doing that I would be very upset.

Same. I don't want the DM to fudge me into an advantage and keep me alive. If, however, there was a case of extreme good luck on the part of the DM(several 20s) and extreme bad luck at the same time on the part of the players(nothing over 10), I wouldn't mind a little fudging to give the party a fighting chance.

A group can die to bad planning, taking on too much, a bit of bad luck, a bad decision, etc., but shouldn't TPK solely due to extreme bad luck with die rolls.

 

[Charlaquin]

Same. I don't want the DM to fudge me into an advantage and keep me alive. If, however, there was a case of extreme good luck on the part of the DM(several 20s) and extreme bad luck at the same time on the part of the players(nothing over 10), I wouldn't mind a little fudging to give the party a fighting chance.

A group can die to bad planning, taking on too much, a bit of bad luck, a bad decision, etc., but shouldn't TPK solely due to extreme bad luck with die rolls.

I’m a strict no-fudging person.