D&D General character death?

[O-Castitatis-Lilium]

I really hope you mean 'character' in the bolded.

And inability to afford revival at low levels (the churches would charge for the service too, right?) is a large part of why low-level play sees a lot of character turnover. It's just part of the game, IMO.

YES! omg LOL!!! it's character death

Yes, while the churches do offer the low-level service, they would charge for it which is still quite pricey depending on the situation. Again, that's just in my games though, not everyone follows that rule lol I agree it is just part of the game, and it's something I see as a learning tool, if a character dies at lower levels, then it's a character, while invested in, it's not too invested in that the person has a lot of attachment to. I could see someone who's got a level 15 or 16 being upset about loosing that character, but a character lost at level 3 or even 5 isn't all that much of a loss if you ask me. It's a great way to show a new player that actions do have consequences. Now, there are DMs that can be rather egregious when it comes to fitting a punishment to a "crime" as it were; but even with that I think it's just that the DM needs a bit more experience in the game is all. I would have to say. I mean, even with that though, I guess it would depend on what type of law system is in that world that the DM is trying to depict as well.

 

[Stalker0]

My experience is that character death in the short term really sucks for some players. But long term the game is enhanced by its inclusion.

When a player has experienced character death, new deadly situations feel just that much more deadly. And when they actually make it out….the victory is that much sweeter

 

[GrimCo]

My players joke about me being killer DM. I run games with lethality cranked to eleven. Chances of adventure ending in TPK are solid. And characters ending dead isn't worst fate they can face. But my groups like them because of that style. Also, my setting doesn't have resurrection. Character dies, it stays dead. If they wanted low danger level, they should become farmers, not adventurers. Another point is that i run "living world". Not every encounter is level appropriate, world is full of powerful and dangerous creatures. To be fair, short of sign "Here be dragons", they get enough clues to know if there is something better left alone in vicinity. If they choose to ignore them and F around, they will find out how nasty the world is.

5E charachter creation is not that tedious or slow for people with modicum of system mastery (compared to PF2 or 3x). Casters are a bit of work with spell selection, but most people tend to stick with classics.

 

[Lanefan]

I didn't say I'm not willing to kill your character. You'll notice that I used the expression "permadeath." That doesn't mean your character won't be killed. It just means that if you're not done with the character, I'll work with you to find a reasonable way to bring them back in the event that this happens.

Got it. I've always liked (and still use) the 1e idea where you have to make a fairly easy but not guaranteed roll in order to be revived; in other words, there's always a chance that any death might be permanent.

Trying to undo or overturn those failed revival rolls has, IME, led to a great deal of adventuring that otherwise wouldn't have been done.

 

[Lanefan]

To use a crass metaphor, I prefer RPGs with a bit of "carrot and stick" mentality. By all means, players/characters should be rewarded with the carrot for good story, character growth, etc. But the stick should also be omnipresent. Consequences, costs, and limitations provide fuel and form. Characters don't necessarily even have to interact with the stick directly, but the threat of it being there is very important.

More important is that at some point (early in the campaign is probably best) you show you're ready and willing to follow through on these threats; otherwise they risk being or becoming seen as paper tigers.

 

[Lanefan]

Fully agree with those who say the character creation process in even a moderately lethal game needs to be simple and efficient.

 

[jayoungr]

In my mind, the design move is not "remove threat of death", rather it is "what are we replacing death with as an interesting narrative stake?"

Thank you--I feel this is a point that isn't made often enough. So many "gamemaster advice" articles and videos just state "Your players need to fear character death in order to keep the game from being dull" as a truism, without ever considering that the underlying issue is actually stakes and that stakes other than death can exist.

I run for three different groups, and at least one of them absolutely hates risking character death. To the point that they become boringly overcautious and refuse to interact with the environment if they are afraid for their characters' lives. The game is much more fun for all of us if I assure them they aren't going to lose their characters unless they are ready to.

 

[Umbran]

Some people play these games for the challenge, others play them to be told repeatedly how awesome they and/or their characters are by simply winning all the time.

Mod Note:
Please take your insulting assertions about why folks might want to play differently than you to some other venue that likes that kind of thing. Because they will end up getting you removed from discussions here...

 

[GMMichael]

I had a near TPK about a year ago. . . They also went in with an NPC that was there both to help them - and to make sure that he was the only one to walk away. The cards were stacked against them, and the dice were against them.

Was it this guy?

Even so, it might not matter, because the 5RD clearly states this (without rhymes, I mean it):

Knocking a Creature Out
Sometimes an attacker wants to incapacitate a foe . . . The attacker can make this choice the instant the damage is dealt (sic). The creature falls unconscious and is stable.

If magic, dragonborn, and binary health statuses (healthy/dead) are possible, so are creatures that choose to incapacitate.

 

[jgsugden]

...If magic, dragonborn, and binary health statuses (healthy/dead) are possible, so are creatures that choose to incapacitate.

My point was that the storytelling is better without fabrication and twisting to keep the heroes alive. Players almost always know when you pull your punches - and that takes away from the game. They'd usually rather have their PC die than realize they're immortal due to story armor.

To put it another way: The game is written through three types of influences - the creations of the DM, the choices of the players, and the luck of the dice. If the DM cheats to protect the PCs from both the luck of the dice and the (bad) choices of the players, then the game is only a production of the DM playing with him (or her) self.

As a player, I'd much rather see my PC die than be artificially saved by the DM.

That being said, if there is a reason for the bad guy to kidnap the PCs and it organically comes to pass - that might happen. And I have, when creating an encounter, thought about elements along those lines as an escape hatch ... but if I decide to build it into the situation, I strive to set it up so that it is organic when it comes to pass and not an "out of the blue" deus ex machina save of the PCs. There needs to be hints and foreshadowing so that the PCs can maneuver towards it rather than have the situation save them unexpectedly.