D&D General character death?

[Lanefan]

Precisely. A conflict can only happen once, and there are no do-overs.

Heh - tell that to the few unfortunate characters I've known (as DM or player) who have been killed twice by the same opponent.

 

[Lanefan]

Doesn't knowing that the characters of a novel aren't going to die without the author getting a good story out of it reduce any sense of verisimilitude and satisfaction from reading a story?

Yes it often does; and what made A Song of Ice and Fire/Game of Thrones such a refreshing change is that you really didn't know who was going to die next.

It's like asking someone why they use save files in a 4x strategy game. "Don't you want the tension of potentially losing everything?" No! I don't! That would make the last three hours of play a completely pointless waste of time!

I seem to recall you don't like rogue-like games, which are built on exactly this basis: you die, you start over.

And was that last three hours really a pointless waste of time? If you enjoyed that run of play, were entertained by it, and in general had fun in the moment (which really is the core point of the exercise, isn't it?), then it seems odd somehow to in hindsight consider it a waste.

 

[Lanefan]

A question for those who say they have to have character death or it spoils the game: How do 5E's death saves affect your feelings about it?

It's a lot harder to be insta-dead in 5E than in some earlier editions. Usually there's an in-between state where you're down and making death saves but not actually dead. Is the risk of that enough to add spice to your combat, or would you get more out of the game with instadeath?

Death saves or similar would be fine if healing (and worse, ranged healing) wasn't so easy to come by.

 

[Clint_L]

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.

I've used a variation on Matt Mercer's system for Critical Role, where resurrection becomes basically a series of challenges where surviving party members can increase or decrease the odds of success, and where it becomes more difficult the more times a character has previously been resurrected. It makes an attempted resurrection much more dramatic, and everyone gets to be involved.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Heh - tell that to the few unfortunate characters I've known (as DM or player) who have been killed twice by the same opponent.

But they were different conflicts, no? It was not literally the same fight, at the same time, in the same place.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Yes it often does; and what made A Song of Ice and Fire/Game of Thrones such a refreshing change is that you really didn't know who was going to die next.

Refreshing, until the series actually got going, and you realize that there are plenty of characters that won't just randomly, unceremoniously die, because that would be boring.

For the TV show, it was always a marketing ploy. For the books, it was a shockingly successful like, two or three characters that die early on--and after that, nada. Remember how much of a thing they made of Khal Drogo's death, how "bringing him back" was a horrible choice that left him in a permanent vegetative state, killed Danaerys' child, and basically had zero positive consequences?

And then remember how Jon Snow got resurrected scot-free (in the show)? Zero consequences? Something GRRM must have approved?

Yeah. Because randomly killing off anyone and everyone doesn't actually make for good story. Once the audience is invested, it's too much of a risk. Killing off Ned Stark was easy. Killing off Jon Snow for real, five books in, when the mystery of his parentage has been such an important backdrop? Not happening.

When we make death the only consequence that matters, we force authors into a corner where their only choices are "ruin the story" or "piss off fans who demanded death."

I seem to recall you don't like rogue-like games, which are built on exactly this basis: you die, you start over.

My problem with rogue-likes is mostly that I run into some kind of impassable skill ceiling in most cases, which leaves me demoralized and frustrated. It happened with Rogue Legacy, this one Doom roguelike, FTL, and some other roguelike I've played but can't remember the name now.

Conversely, I very much enjoy Hades and Desktop Dungeons. The former actually rewards you with...get this...more interesting story each time you die, and each death feels like a bittersweet opportunity, rather than just a straight "sorry, you lost because of Random Bovine Feces you couldn't possibly predict or manage, try again motherfluffer." And Desktop Dungeons is just funny, and never really had a skill ceiling--there was always something else I could do to improve my chances or obtain new options, even when failure abounded.

And was that last three hours really a pointless waste of time? If you enjoyed that run of play, were entertained by it, and in general had fun in the moment (which really is the core point of the exercise, isn't it?), then it seems odd somehow to in hindsight consider it a waste.

I enjoy the mid-to-late game of strategy stuff. The early game is usually quite boring to me, because it's always pretty much identical for any given game. Civ 6? Kill the 2-3 barb camps in your area, fail to get the Great Bath, try for a few early wonders, squeeze out as many cities as you can, pray you get some useful city-states nearby. Stellaris? Explore the dozen-or-so systems in your area, fling colony ships at every colonizable world in reach, achingly slowly work your way through the traditions, hope you get one of the moderately-interesting events because you've seen all ~24-ish before and know what every choice works out to be.

Honestly, I feel the same way about 5e. The first few levels are incredibly boring, but everyone seems to want them to last forever and be a painful, ungodfully long slog before you're allowed to get to anything actually interesting or engaging. Levels where you have to play a mostly-useless rube so green around the ears, folks wonder if you're related to the Jolly Green Giant, where a single unlucky crit can potentially kill you outright from full HP.* Because apparently churning through six characters before you ever get to see level four is how we have fun nowadays. I'd rather have a fingernail pulled.

*If you think I'm exaggerating: A CR1 Dire Wolf is classified as a "Medium" encounter for four characters. It has 37.5 average HP and, on a crit, deals an average of 17 damage. The maximum HP a typical 1st-level character--Barbarian with 16 Con--can achieve...is 17. Meaning an average crit leaves the hardiest starting character lying on the floor, dying. A character with d6 or d8 HP, even with a +1 Con mod, is rocking 7-9 HP. For the former, an average crit kills them instantly--no death saves. For the latter, it need be only one point above average (9x2 = 18) in order to instantly kill. More than two thirds of classes are, quite literally, one unlucky crit from death against an allegedly "medium" encounter, to say nothing of a "deadly" one.

 

[jgsugden]

Two examples. One from my current game. The other from a game where I was a player.

Our party Druid had been learning a lot about the foundations of magic and how his tradition is, effectively, just one perspective, and perhaps limited in some ways. When the party had geared up for a dangerous fight (attempting to slay an engorged, powerful mind-virus spirit of savagery and entropy called the Song of Thorns), as the coup de grace, he used the Shaman magic he had learned...to invoke the One, the (claimed) omnipotent monotheistic deity of the Safiqi priesthood (the dominant religion of their region, loosely based on IRL Islam.) The player had expected this to be a death for the character, as he was wrapping up the Druid's participation—this is the aforementioned player who had to bow out for IRL reasons I won't share here. Instead, I invoked a Biblical concept: the Druid "walked with the One and was no more, for the One took him away" (the unique and mysterious fate of Enoch, the only Biblical patriarch who is not said to have died in the text.) This was explicit to the player that the character was removed, and was going to have some Responsibilities as a result of his choice, but that there was a path to his return, should he be able to do so. The player was pleased that this fit the theme and concept he was aiming for in an unexpected way, and later on did in fact return for a brief while before going away again (the character is now a student at seminary as part of the consequences of his choices.) I didn't protect the Druid from anything, he paid a price for his prayer, and has fundamentally changed who and what he is as a result of his choices. But I did provide a pathway for that character's story to continue (or, it now seems, conclude elsewhere), if the player was interested.

It sounds a bit like you'd done some research in advance and knew you wanted to make that situation happen in the moment of sacrifice. Did you foreshadow it? Did you drop hints that could be seen in retrospect to indicate your 'take a hike with the One' might be there? If so, you're doing exactly what I advocated for ... if not, we'll come back to it once we hit a few points.

As a starting point - you stole the PC's thunder. They decided to make the sacrifice play, and you took it away. You overwrote the story they were trying to craft. They had set their character up for a memorable and meaningful exist ... and you took away their choice. That redirection is a bit like planning to take your significant other to a concert you've been waiting to see, only to have that significant other surprise you with a surprise party with all your friends ... forcing you to miss the concert that you wanted to see. Sure, you do the polite thing and try to enjoy the night ... but there is a sense of loss for missing the thing that you wanted. Let's say that the player didn't come back. That character's ending is lost. They're still floating out there. You took away closure.

However, they did come back. And they now have a precedent set for them: If I make the sacrifice play the DM will save me. All the players have that precedent set. So, if a situation arises where they can sacrifice for the good of others, it lacks meaning. It is diminished. When the players have reason to believe you'll save them from their luck, their bad decisions, or heck - even when they intentionally make the sacrifice play ... it all loses meaning. This is the crux of why this deus ex machina approach hurts the games.

I'm going to assume you didn't foreshadow this move - because if you did, it would be an example of setting it up as I advocated from the start. How would foreshadowing and setting this up change the situation. How would it alter the criticism I placed above.

First, let's address the feeling of loss from having their plan stolen. He still had a plan, it still didn't go as he expected. So why is it different just because it was foreshadowed? Because they can see the story in retrospect and see that they could have seen the twist coming had they had the right perspective. The change will feel earned. This is basic storytelling. They see the twist as part of the story that they just didn't understand ... not something done to their character out of the blue. There is a huge difference when you watch a movie and the hero is saved by something that was set up rather than when they are saved by something unexpected that was not set up.

Now let's address the expectation of being saved. When the PCs look back at this in the future they'll see there were clues that it was possible. They'll see that it was something that was part of the storytelling. So, when the next situation occurs when they are in dire circumstances, they'll be looking for something that that will save them. They won't just be expecting you to save them regardless with something out of the blue. They'll still be looking for that way to win ... not just waiting for you to give them the win. They remain the drivers of the story ... not recipients of it.

Had I been running this situation and had the player indicated to me that they planned to make that sacrifice play in advance, and had the Biblical idea you introduced occur to me, I would have woven in the groundwork for the twist sessions in advance. Then it would feel earned and would not have left the players feeling like we just handwaived and saved the PC for the future.

If the player had indicated to me during the sacrificial session that he was about to make that sacrifice and had I had the sudden inspiration to use my Biblical knowledge to provide that ending - there is absolutely no way I step on his toes by overwriting his move and replacing his resolution with something I make up as a 'better' ending.

However, I might - as an attempted impartial DM - not allow his plan to succeed if there were reasons for it to fail (such as a misunderstanding of the religion, a bad roll of the dice on some part of the sacrifice play, etc...). This could also rob him of his sacrifice in a different way ... but that doesn't steal the agency from the player. It gives them a tragic end - a failed sacrifice that cost them their life, but doesn't give them the win ... leaving the other PCs to figure it out. But, it doesn't overwrite what they did - it just didn't work out for them. It is a harsh world sometimes when we make mistakes or luck runs against us.

Why is the potential of failing and dying for nothing better than having you give them your happy resolution? Because it was their choice. If you set things up, they shouldn't have been surprised by the possibility of failure - and they'll feel it as part of the story. It will feel like an earned end. I'm sure they'd much rather have the sacrifice work out in the favor of the PCs, but even when it doesn't, it feels like their story, not the one you gave them.

As for the second example, I will try to be more brief. This was a 4e game in a homebrew science-fantasy space opera setting. My character, a Paladin in mechanics and behavior (story for that is complicated), died from a nasty crit at a bad time, instant death, no death saves. I temporarily played an NPC that had tagged along with the party during this time. The long-lost precursor race that had created my character's species (as soldiers and engineers/workers mainly) could revive the dead, but it was not something they would do at the drop of a hat. The party had to convince the Archivist (sapient AI caretaker) of the Astilabor containment facility to revive him, and it was all, "Why exactly should I do that? I could just create another, it would be much more efficient." Two party members gave their reasons, and then the irreverent, smart-aleck dronesmith piped up with one of the most touching appeals I've ever heard, even though up to this point she had been mostly sarcastic or a chaos gremlin toward my char: "He was the only one who spoke to a dying presence and learned what it had to say. [pause] ....and he was my friend." Such a simple phrase, and yet loaded with emotion.

So, the equivalent of a raise dead spell was known to be available (it seems it was known as you go straight to how the PCs proactively went to ask for it) ... and they persuaded an NPC to do it. Again - that is not what I advocated against. There was nothing done - after the fact and unearned - that bailed the PCs out. They used the tools they knew to exist. This is the equivalent of going to a church and accepting a quest from the cleric in exchange for a raise dead spell.

Had the ability to revise your PC been introduced after your death and had that Archivist been introduced to be nearby so that you could get your PC back right away ... that would be what I am advocating against. However, this seems to be pretty run of the mill 'playing with the toys they've been given', unless I am missing something.

I do not expect to actually enlighten you. The ones more likely to benefit from the discussion are others that are not so biased in their views.
Others can read these discussions and decide what they think of the situations.

With that being said, I don't think either of us will have anything new to offer beyond what we've said.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

It sounds a bit like you'd done some research in advance and knew you wanted to make that situation happen in the moment of sacrifice. Did you foreshadow it? Did you drop hints that could be seen in retrospect to indicate your 'take a hike with the One' might be there? If so, you're doing exactly what I advocated for ... if not, we'll come back to it once we hit a few points.

No. I had no idea the character intended to do this. It caught me completely by surprise.

As a starting point - you stole the PC's thunder. They decided to make the sacrifice play, and you took it away.

That--explicitly--is not how the player saw it. He explicitly told me otherwise. I cannot really respond to any other discussion on that front, because you have assumed I did something the player explicitly said I did not do. (He was, in fact, delighted to see the story play out as it did, and after his temporary return, he explicitly thanked me for providing the opportunity for real closure.)

There is a huge difference when you watch a movie and the hero is saved by something that was set up rather than when they are saved by something unexpected that was not set up.

I agree. That's why I cited the (numerous) examples of established options I could use, if a player character just randomly bit the dust. Numerous powerful allies with direct or proxy access to resurrection magic, and other resources/knowledge they could draw upon to undertake the process themselves if they prefer to do so. I do my homework.

In fact, both this player and, separately, another player (the tiefling Bard) have privately complimented my ability to include twists and surprises that could have been foreseen, if the players had put the pieces together in the right sequence, but it just happened to be the case that they didn't do so. More than once, my players have in fact put together the pieces in advance and short-circuited something that could have played out differently, and every time they have done so, I embraced it. (One of those times with, I admit, a moment of weakness where I considered saying no--this being the time they completely obviated a set-piece "boss fight" with basic tactics because I was a fool, and they outsmarted me--but thankfully the better angels of my nature won out and I went along with it. The players still occasionally reference that "fight," going on five years later.)

Baked into your analysis is, still, consistently, the idea that if there's an opportunity to revive a dead character or the like, it must be a bungled intrusion from the GM which totally overrides and dismisses the players' interests and preferences. I keep telling you, that is the precise assumption I disagree with. It doesn't have to be that way. There are a zillion ways it can be otherwise. It would be much more interesting to discuss those things, than to discuss "obviously bad DMing: is it obviously bad?" Because the answer to that question is, "Yes, it is obviously bad by definition, because you set it up to be so."

I'm sorry that you've had to deal with ham-fisted DMs engaging in unfortunate, obviously bad DM behavior. That sucks, and in a better world, nobody would have to deal with that. But just because you've experienced bad DM behavior does not mean that that behavior is representative--and even if it is, it doesn't mean that things cannot ever be done better. Isn't it more productive to discuss...y'know...ways to do things better, rather than to dwell on how an obviously bad thing is obviously bad?

Had I been running this situation and had the player indicated to me that they planned to make that sacrifice play in advance, and had the Biblical idea you introduced occur to me, I would have woven in the groundwork for the twist sessions in advance. Then it would feel earned and would not have left the players feeling like we just handwaived and saved the PC for the future.

The player said nothing about it to me in advance. It was sprung out of the blue. It is possible that the player meant to hint at it, but I missed any hints or foreshadowing they intended. I only knew that the player intended this to be an actual death, and not a hiatus, after the fact. We discussed it afterwards.

Why is the potential of failing and dying for nothing better than having you give them your happy resolution?

Except that it wasn't. Because the player explicitly said that the way it actually played out was better. That's why I gave the example. The player explicitly--both at the time and later, during his temporary return--preferred how this played out, and both before and after explicitly said he appreciates that, when the characters make choices, I respect those choices. How does that square with your analysis?

 

[cranberry]

Playing in a game where there was little or no risk of PC death would not be my preference.

 

[Vaalingrade]

Yes it often does; and what made A Song of Ice and Fire/Game of Thrones such a refreshing change is that you really didn't know who was going to die next.

Then 90% of fantasy aped it for a decade, making the entire supergenre basically unreadable.