How Do You Like Your Death in D&D

[Maxperson]

I went with "PC death can happen due to poor/stupid decisions but are rare." because raising magic is also rare in my game. If they weren't rare, it would be a problem since for the most part they don't come back. I see 0 to 2 deaths in a typical campaign. Enough for the players to fear and respect the specter of death, but not enough that they don't invest in their characters.

 

[Greg Benage]

I picked one of the "rare" options, but on second thought, revivify and raise dead have been fairly common, so maybe it's only rare for it to stick.

On a side note, I think it would be very challenging to play in a roleplay-heavy campaign where you're playing a character who does extraordinarily dangerous things but is protected mechanically from the consequences. I suspect there might be a disconnect about what constitutes "roleplaying."

 

[Oofta]

A mixture of mechanical support of RP elements (exposed motivations, interaction points, environmental linkages, et al) and mechanical support for other combat outcomes other than death for the combats that do occur either through player control or stake assignment.

I still have no real clue what you're talking about ... other than you prefer a game with mechanical carrots and sticks to force and reward roleplaying. If that's what you like, that's great. I wouldn't want that and don't think it's necessary. I've had enjoyable all day game sessions where there was no combat, and the dice were only pulled out occasionally. I don't need or want game rules to decide for me what level of RP is appropriate for my game.

Some people enjoy having complex fleshed out characters with back stories and sometimes convoluted back stories. I know I do. Others just like to write up a barbarian and roll some dice even if Grog the Mighty isn't much more than stats on a page. The great thing to me about D&D is that it supports people at either end of the spectrum, often at the same table.

As for rewarding overcoming obstacles without killing your enemy, that's discussed in the DMG. I don't see why you would need special rules for it.

I guess I just look at D&D as an open-ended framework for story telling with rules on how to resolve certain aspects of that story. For the aspects that are not covered, I don't need or particularly want rules. Or I've just totally missed your point.

 

[Rya.Reisender]

In my games, death happens mostly due to bad strategies / decisions during combat. Of course luck still plays a part, but I usually don't let my players face a threat they could not survive if they use good strategies (or know when to run). So basically whether they live or die their decisions determine. How many mistakes they can make is determined by their luck.

 

[Nagol]

I still have no real clue what you're talking about ... other than you prefer a game with mechanical carrots and sticks to force and reward roleplaying. If that's what you like, that's great. I wouldn't want that and don't think it's necessary. I've had enjoyable all day game sessions where there was no combat, and the dice were only pulled out occasionally. I don't need or want game rules to decide for me what level of RP is appropriate for my game.

Some people enjoy having complex fleshed out characters with back stories and sometimes convoluted back stories. I know I do. Others just like to write up a barbarian and roll some dice even if Grog the Mighty isn't much more than stats on a page. The great thing to me about D&D is that it supports people at either end of the spectrum, often at the same table.

As for rewarding overcoming obstacles without killing your enemy, that's discussed in the DMG. I don't see why you would need special rules for it.

I guess I just look at D&D as an open-ended framework for story telling with rules on how to resolve certain aspects of that story. For the aspects that are not covered, I don't need or particularly want rules. Or I've just totally missed your point.

Idon't have a lot of time this morning so my reply will be briefer than I'd like.

It is not about carrots and sticks so much as its about clear signaling of player desire and stakes and game mechanics that will matter to the campaign in question. Without game mechanics, the activity while fun, isn't much of a game. And I'm not talking about having a RP-heavy session; I'm talking about a RP-heavy campaign. When I refer to campaign I generally mean a game that is expected to run for multiple years. As a quick example, no version of D&D offers the DM and other players structured insight into a character's motivations, fears, or desires. Contrast this with Pendragon, FATE, Hero System, GURPS, Gumshoe, Burning Wheel, or Vampire the Masquerade. Almost no version of D&D offers a mechanic for testing resolve of a character PC or NPC preferring to rely entirely on the controlling player's decision. Contrast this with all the above plus the Unisystem and Powered by the Apocalypse rulesets. No version of D&D has mechanics to support social, material, or verbal conflict. Contrast this with Dogs in the Vineyard and FATE.​

 

[Draegn]

I voted that life is cheap, however, being maimed and disfigured is far more common and gives the players a narrow window to run away like Sir Robin.

More often than not, my players, when not being diplomatic and finding themselves in a hurtful situation, have done so by splitting off into smaller groups or gone solo.

 

[Oofta]

Idon't have a lot of time this morning so my reply will be briefer than I'd like.

It is not about carrots and sticks so much as its about clear signaling of player desire and stakes and game mechanics that will matter to the campaign in question. Without game mechanics, the activity while fun, isn't much of a game. And I'm not talking about having a RP-heavy session; I'm talking about a RP-heavy campaign. When I refer to campaign I generally mean a game that is expected to run for multiple years. As a quick example, no version of D&D offers the DM and other players structured insight into a character's motivations, fears, or desires. Contrast this with Pendragon, FATE, Hero System, GURPS, Gumshoe, Burning Wheel, or Vampire the Masquerade. Almost no version of D&D offers a mechanic for testing resolve of a character PC or NPC preferring to rely entirely on the controlling player's decision. Contrast this with all the above plus the Unisystem and Powered by the Apocalypse rulesets. No version of D&D has mechanics to support social, material, or verbal conflict. Contrast this with Dogs in the Vineyard and FATE.​

Different people have different preferences, I just don't have a problem with the free-form RP of D&D. I see plenty of impact from RP in my campaigns, entire campaign arcs have changed because of it so I don't see a need for mechanics. That aspect of the campaign isn't a game per se ... it's interactive story telling based on the sum total of actions, deeds and words of the PCs. I don't want to reduce that aspect of the game to rules. For me I don't want that structure you seek. It would feel like a crutch.

There's nothing wrong with preferring a different style or different game. Just like some people love raw fish with green-colored horseradish because it's called sushi and I'd prefer my tuna out of a can.

 

[GameOgre]

I actually WANT for Life is cheap and death is around every corner! BUT....that's the atmosphere I am shooting for not the reality. When PC's lose a character they were having a lot of fun with....the fun stops. Granted, I feel like you NEED to have the life is cheap atmosphere and for that to happen you have to kill off pc's sometimes when they do stupid things or have horrible luck BUT.....I try to let them live if I can and still keep the atmosphere going.

I do not like to kill pc's but every player at my table would tell you "He doesn't pull any punches and sometimes seems to love killing us" because I have worked hard to foster this false opinion. In reality 99% of the time I consider it a failure on my part if they die. Even when they do stupid things I often think"I didn't describe that well enough or what the obvious results would be well enough and because of that, got them killed."

Now this isnt always the case. Sometimes players are just foolhardy because they either do not care or have a exaggerated opinion of there own abilities.

 

[Blue]

I really need to pick two. Deaths are a result of poor decisions or a run of unlucky rolls. But usually the unlucky rolls can be mitigated short of death by some smart thinking, so I went for that one in the poll.

Death can also always be by player decision - in my current campaign we had a great heroic sacrifice. But not only by player decision, so that's not the poll choice I'd pick.

As a player, combat is boring without risk. And in 5e it's pretty hard to kill someone even if you knock them out. And hard to even keep them down with all of the healing about. So bring it.

 

[Blue]

There's an interesting sidebar variant rule for 13th Age, attributed to 7th Sea (1st edition, 2nd wasn't out when 13th Age was printed). It was that a PC will never die to an unnamed PC. If they woudl be killed, they are long-term (plot-based) unconscious/taken out. Now, tribal warrior #3 might easily take the fallen PC to their (named) shaman to be sacrificed to a volcano, but that still gives the other PCs a chance to intervene.

As a side note, that particular sidebar was from Jonathan Tweet, who from the other sidebars sounds like a read hard-line DM. So it was interesting coming from him - basically "I'll throw the kitchen sink at you, but if you die it will be meaningful, not just bad luck."