D&D 5E Why penalize returning from death?

[The Crimson Binome]

Think of any story you read or watch. Characters generally don't die unless it's good for the story.

Why do we let D&D create bad stories?

That's the difference between a role-playing game and a story-telling game. In a role-playing game, you play a role, and the story is whatever comes from that. The rules of the game simply reflect the reality of the game world. There are no terms for novelistic merit in the laws of nature.

There are games which are designed to produce the kinds of stories you would read or watch, rather than to simply model the reality of a fictional world. D&D is not one of those games.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

So my question is: Why is the hassle needed to return from the dead? By dying you potentially lose a lot of game time spent building up that character also adventure hooks etc. It would be much more fun not penalizing character death to this extent.

The rules of the game model the reality of the game world, which is what lends meaning to the actions of your character. Your decisions as a player, figuring out what your character should do, only matter because of their consequences.

As an example, let's say a dragon has burst into the fancy dinner party you've attended, and it starts wrecking the place. You have a number of obvious options available to you (and any number of less obvious options, which we'll ignore for the sake of simplicity): 1) You could run to get your weapon or magic focus, and then run back to engage the dragon and hopefully save the day before it's caused too much damage; 2) You could charge straight at the dragon, armed with only your dinner knife; 3) You could create a distraction, hoping to lure the dragon away while everyone else escapes.

Without getting into too many specifics, because there's likely to be a lot of dice rolling in any occasion, one of those choices is much more likely to get yourself killed. This could literally be the end of your life. You could literally be dead within the next minute. Or a lot of other people could be dead soon, depending on your choice. If you (the player) don't take these things into consideration, then you (the character) can't make the right decision - whatever that may mean to them. But the point is, whether you charge forward and die, or run away and let other people die, your choice actually matters.

If the character can't die without the consent of the player, then your decision wouldn't matter at all. If you survive through narrative fiat, rather than through the internal causality within the game world, then you shouldn't really have survived at all - if the world was a real-but-fantastic place, rather than just a story, you would be dead. And why would anyone care about a game where your choices don't matter?

 

[iserith]

No, it was a sincere question, because HP represents life. If you never have the risk of dying, then combat just comes down to a variation of narration.

Sure, you could say that HP actually represents the ability to continue fighting or contributing and that, at 0 hp, the character is defeated and falls back, retreats, or is otherwise "taken out." The context of the scene will determine the best choice for narration. HP act as a pacing mechanic for how long you're contributing to the challenge. Whether or not there is tension in that will come down, as always, to the stakes. If the players care enough about winning (or care enough about not losing), then it's basically the same level of excitement as life-or-death situations.

 

[BookBarbarian]

I'm currently running an Adventures in Middle Earth game. There are no resurrection spells. Death is now more meaningful. It's been pretty enjoyable so far.

Still If I thought material components for Resurrection spells were a big detriment to the game I could play a Zealot.

 

[5ekyu]

No, it was a sincere question, because HP represents life. If you never have the risk of dying, then combat just comes down to a variation of narration. Hence, what i said about about just having everyone roll one die. If they roll a 1, then it didn't go well. If they roll a 20, then they heroically defeated the encounter or something. Getting knocked down is pretty inconsequential if you don't ever have the risk of dying. It becomes an inconvenience that is always overcome, because you always survive to the next one.

But speaking of hyperbole, you nailed it with this:




No one loses their home by having their PC die in a game.

Again, there is a whole lot of combat gameplay and fun between full hit points and death... yet you jump to without dead just roll one die and narrate - well that eliminates a lot of back and forth gameplay. Some find that back and forth gameplay fun.

I mean, in chess, why not just roll a die and say one side wins - oh yeah, playing the game is the fun part.

And what you missed in addition to the point is the word "like" - in my house example - things can be fun to do even without major stakes at risk - happens every day in lotsa and lots of pleasurable activities even those away from the table.

 

[5ekyu]

Sure, you could say that HP actually represents the ability to continue fighting or contributing and that, at 0 hp, the character is defeated and falls back, retreats, or is otherwise "taken out." The context of the scene will determine the best choice for narration. HP act as a pacing mechanic for how long you're contributing to the challenge. Whether or not there is tension in that will come down, as always, to the stakes. If the players care enough about winning (or care enough about not losing), then it's basically the same level of excitement as life-or-death situations.

Yup - some hit points - i get to do stuff... no hit points i dont get to do stuff. Seems pretty cut and dried the importance for hit points even without death?!?!?

if survival is more important than doing stuff, role play staying at home in a basement while the other characters go out and do stuff.

 

[jasper]

Why do we let D&D create bad stories? Because it a game and not a story book.
squirm with guilt,.. So I evil now. I burn down the jimmy's lemonaid stand.
or get captured,... My druid wakes up and uses wild shape to turn into a spider to escape chains.
or blamed, I didn't kill the granny giant that was the druid. Who looks like this!
or exiled... Dm. So dude you got exiled to Queens in New York City. Since I have not even drew those maps up. Start another character.

 

[BookBarbarian]

I've been thinking about this in terms of an analogy. Perhaps it will make sense to others.

Have you ever played poker for money, and played poker for not money. Like just using the plastic chips to represent money, but not actually having anything really on the line in the game. There is a big difference between the two games.

With real money on the line players play smart. They play cautiously. They only put more money in the pot when they think they have a decent chance of winning.

With no money on the line, players are much more likely to put chips into the pot on a bad hand, because "who cares?"

That's the difference stakes have in a game. It makes an otherwise identical game play very differently.

 

[Sacrosanct]

I've been thinking about this in terms of an analogy. Perhaps it will make sense to others.

Have you ever played poker for money, and played poker for not money. Like just using the plastic chips to represent money, but not actually having anything really on the line in the game. There is a big difference between the two games.

With real money on the line players play smart. They play cautiously. They only put more money in the pot when they think they have a decent chance of winning.

With no money on the line, players are much more likely to put chips into the pot on a bad hand, because "who cares?"

That's the difference stakes have in a game. It makes an otherwise identical game play very differently.

Oh yeah, totally. I played AD&D from 1981 to 2012 before 5e came out. Players (even the same players over the years) play both games completely differently. 5e is much more rush in Leeroy Jenkins than 1e ever was.

 

[Saeviomagy]

Oh yeah, totally. I played AD&D from 1981 to 2012 before 5e came out. Players (even the same players over the years) play both games completely differently. 5e is much more rush in Leeroy Jenkins than 1e ever was.

Really? My experience was totally the opposite to that. 1e & 2e were meat grinders - you threw 'characters' at the game until some survived. 3e and beyond, you don't do that, because character creation actually takes time, involves choices and creates more than a bag of numbers.