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

[Hussar]

I’m a strict no-fudging person.

But if it's announced up front that character death is off the table, is it still fudging?

 

[Charlaquin]

But if it's announced up front that character death is off the table, is it still fudging?

You mean is it fudging when a character should be dead by the rules and you decide they aren’t? No. When you secretly change hit points or the dice rolls or whatever to prevent the character from dying? Yes.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

I can't see that as anything other than a superpower the vast majority of gamers I've played with over the decades would abuse early and often.

Whereas I’ve played with maybe 3 gamers that would “abuse” such a dynamic, ever.

 

[FrozenNorth]

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.

Faramir did it first. And barely changed the name of his previous character.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

You mean is it fudging when a character should be dead by the rules and you decide they aren’t? No. When you secretly change hit points or the dice rolls or whatever to prevent the character from dying? Yes.

Also doesn’t the DMG talk about “dead” not always actually being the end? I can’t recall if it’s there or elsewhere.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

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 think this plays into the difference of preference wrt death, for sure.

It’s a lot harder to be down to kill a character when I’ve made the BBEG of the entire campaign tie in to their personal story.

 

[Umbran]

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.

Mod Note:
Agreed.

If you aren't on board with the idea of a no-death game, it is past time to take a hike. This thread is not here to justify things to folks who don't want them.

@Charlaquin - Sorry, but you, specifically, seem to be taking the conversation off into places where folks wind up having to justify their choices to you, in one way or another. Please stop. You should stop positioning yourself, and what you'd like, as the focus of the discussion.

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

Also doesn’t the DMG talk about “dead” not always actually being the end? I can’t recall if it’s there or elsewhere.

Which brings up the point that "No character death unless agreed" generally is referring to actual loss of the character. If the party have the resources for a revivify or similar available, "no death" DMs are often more willing to let the character kark it.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Also doesn’t the DMG talk about “dead” not always actually being the end? I can’t recall if it’s there or elsewhere.

There's a difference between "not always" and "never".

 

[overgeeked]

Whereas I’ve played with maybe 3 gamers that would “abuse” such a dynamic, ever.

I’m honestly jealous. Any game where the players knew their characters couldn’t die would immediately turn into Blade of the Immortal combined with Jackass.