New WotC Article - Deadly Dice

[RoboCheney]

For me it rides on how easy or hard it is to bring back characters from the dead. Parting with some loot to pay for a ritual is kinda lame from a story perspective, but right when characters regularly live-or-die by the dice and you don't want mortality to slow down the game.

I guess I prefer death to be rare, but raise dead magic to be rarer. Actually, it'd be cooler to have dead characters come back as shades (HoS race) or ghosts (a la Ghostwalk). Or as their past serves, but only for those cameo appearances with the big bad before they must return to the next world.

However you slice it, death should be a big deal and characters that come back from it should be changed.

 

[FireLance]

I voted for "Characters shouldn't die unless they do something really foolish."

When I kill off a PC, I want the player to know that it's his fault, not the dice.

 

[pemerton]

I have to admit that I'm a little surprised at all the comments implying that death is necessary for tension and excitement:

<snip>

Aren't there are things the PCs care about besides their personal health?

Agreed.

Some players like combat, that doesn't mean they like their characters to die. There's no reason that this person's playstyle should be seen as a risk to the entire group, and then to be avoided at all costs.

Also agreed, and the two points interact. I like a game with a reasonable amount of combat, but I generally like there to be stakes in the combat other than simply staying alive - rescuing someone, finding something, protecting someone/something, etc.

So I voted "rare, but some encounters pose a threat of death". I thought of voting for the "story" option, but I think that is likely to be interepreted as a vote in favour of GM railroading. Speaking of which, this comment from Monte really irritated me:

the lethality level of the game [is] always at the discretion of the Dungeon Master, who can fudge things​

I don't want to have to fudge to make the game work. I want mechanics that work as they are written. Plenty of other games can do this, so why not D&D?

There are plenty of other games one can use to tell stories. In D&D, death happens when it happens.

So all these years I haven't been playing D&D?

How come the "essence of D&D" is this one particular way of playing, which - given the lingering popularity of 2nd ed AD&D, plus the continued popularity of Paizo's AP - may well be a minority now even if it was not back in the day (and even that I'm not sure about)? Maybe a unity edition should support the way the game is actually played by a wide range of players, rather than just one narrow approach.

 

[pemerton]

I voted for "Characters shouldn't die unless they do something really foolish."

My only objection to that is that it tends to preculde heroic self-sacrifice as a cause of death (I'm assuming here that self-sacrifice is not per se foolish).

 

[Grazzt]

I would be perfectly happy if raise dead and the like were simply unavailable at levels below 7th-9th, depending on how the game's levels scale. There's just something about some low level scrub being brought back from the dead that trivializes it as a story element for me.
Of course, I tend to prefer high (or at least, higher) lethality games both as player and GM, so I'm already kind of in the minority here.

In my game, we turned Raise Dead into a ritual (kind of a cross between 3.x incantations and the 4e ritual). Requires a sacrifice (animal or humanoid) of a certain HD/level...kind of that "life for a life" type thing. So, makes Raise Dead available, just not always viable or possible. (There's also a chance of spell failure that results in the spell failing and forever killing the character and/or damaging the caster as well.)

 

[Grazzt]

Uncommon is a good default, but the best is of course if the rules make it easy for the DM to control lethality.

Agreed. My game, death is uncommon I guess, but game is lethal at times. Characters die. NPCs die. Everyone dies. Think Elric saga, Game of Thrones, Conan, etc.

 

[howandwhy99]

I voted #2, but I would vote 1-4 if possible.

Character death in my campaign is an absolute certainty. Your character will die. You may retire them before they do, but characters age, grow old, and die, and only if some orc's axehead doesn't cut their head off before that.

I voted #2 because it's the default level for level appropriate challenges in my game world. At 1st level you face 1st level monsters with 1st level treasures in 1st level parts of the world. However, once you've gained some XP, leveled, grabbed better gear, figured out a few magic items, then your PC is more than ready for something tougher.

Please note, players choose their challenge level. I only start them at relatively basic difficulty depending on their maturity (i.e. are they kids, adults, teenagers, etc.)

Once they start adventuring they can delve the proverbial dungeon depths as deep as they wish to. Nothing is stopping them from heading to level 10 Orcus except their own ingenuity and luck.

I picked 1-4 because that really is what player chosen challenge level means to me. They could go 1, 2, 3, or 4. Level 1 kobolds may be about a #2 in Monte's poll to start, but they can hang around there and be King of the Kobold Slayers for years if they want. I kind of think this is not living up to one's potential, but it is not up to me to judge what is fun for them.

My game is balanced so level 10 creatures can be hit even at level 1 no treasure (magic items). It's pretty damn lucky to do so, but it can happen. On the flip side, Level 1 creatures always have a chance to take on 10th level PCs too and win. They are, of course, far better off ganging up and high level is when mass combat really comes into its own anyways, but even 1-on-1 there is a chance.

 

[delericho]

I went for "Character death is uncommon, but the threat of death should always be present." Which seems to be by far the most popular option.

Personally, I've never had a problem with the frequency of character death in 4e, or in 3e at low or medium levels. At high levels in 3e, it was a problem because of the ubiquity of Save-or-Die (automatic 5% of death) and the ease of coming back - really not a fan of the "revolving door of death".

Of course, one could argue that the D&D game isn’t about feelings of accomplishment. It’s about creating characters and developing fantasy stories. Characters perhaps shouldn’t die unless circumstances dictate it, rather than when the dice go against them.

When we play we are telling stories, but those stories are partially defined by the dice. That's the fundamental beauty of D&D - nobody can know ahead of time how things are going to pan out.

But "when the dice go against them", that's an example of when "circumstances dictate" that they should die!

 

[Starfox]

I am very much with TheMormegil (the first comment on the wizard's site) and voted characters only die for story reasons.

Having characters die has two effects, both very bad IMO.

* The characters stop being heroic. At any hint of risk, they seek the slow, safe options. 15-minute adventuring days and taking 2 minutes to do Take 20 on every square of the dungeon fits this style. if the DM tries to stress them, they simply balk, back off, and look for another scenario.

* The players begin to think of their characters as playing pieces, not worth the risk of investing emotionally in. Things like background story and personality takes second place to "build" and fun maneuvers in combat. Death becomes just another chance to try out a new build.

When some players go down the first route and some down the other, play really starts to disintegrate.

 

[ExploderWizard]

So all these years I haven't been playing D&D?

I don't know. I haven't been there to know one way or the other.

How come the "essence of D&D" is this one particular way of playing, which - given the lingering popularity of 2nd ed AD&D, plus the continued popularity of Paizo's AP - may well be a minority now even if it was not back in the day (and even that I'm not sure about)? Maybe a unity edition should support the way the game is actually played by a wide range of players, rather than just one narrow approach.

D&D is a roleplaying game not a storytelling game. Monopoly is a board game. It is quite possible to roleplay your piece in Monopoly. Does this mean that the rules need to be reworked to take those roleplaying possibilities into account? I don't think so. There are roleplaying games available to those that enjoy them that would scratch the itch much better than Monopoly.

Likewise with story games. There are more story oriented rpgs out there with mechanics designed for such a purpose. There is no need to take a hammer to a traditional roleplaying game and pound it into a storytelling system.

The game can be, and has been played in many ways. At its core D&D is very simple and can be modified to be all sorts of different things. This is how it should remain.