D&D 5E Where does the punitive approach to pc death come from?

[I'm A Banana]

By any chance, have you seen a film called 'Stranger Than Fiction'?

I think you lose a lot of the drama from a heroic sacrifice, when the hero chooses to accept that death ahead of time. Of course, it's also not terribly heroic when someone dies to a random lucky shot from a goblin, so there's the trade-off.

Sure, but on the other hand, your Dumbledores and your Obi Wans knew that they were actually risking their lives when they made their choices, and knew that their lives would be lost in the service of something greater. The Death Flag doesn't assure your death, it just means you're prepared to accept it! Though I'm not tryin' to sell it, really. I just find it is a great solution for this issue:

See I don't mind losing a character I like if the death is momentous but if its anonymous like failing a dex save or a super-deadly random encounter, that's not good storytelling (unless you're playing realistic grim n' gritty).

 

[jayoungr]

There's another issue that's been touched on in passing here, and that's the amount of character story that happens at the table vs the amount that happens away from the table.

There's one style of play that cares a lot about who the character is before starting his/her first day of adventuring, and what he/she has done up to that moment. There's another style that puts the vast majority of the emphasis on what happens going forward from that first day of adventuring, and the character's life up to that point is lightly sketched in at best.

It doesn't necessarily mean one group is more focused on roleplay than the other; both approaches can lead to the same types of storylines. For example, players in the first style would be likely to bring PCs to the table who would would already have story hooks attached to them: "My rogue ripped off the thieves' guild on his way out of town, and the head of the guild will be sending agents to retrieve the stolen money." Players in the second style might well enjoy playing the same story, but they would expect to play out the stealing of the money at the table and then deal with the consequences.

It feels to me like newer players are more likely to play in the first style and older players in the second style; but that's just an impression, and it could well be that both playstyles have coexisted since the beginning. Anyway, if you're the second type of player, starting at level 1 isn't necessarily punitive. You may not want to start your character at a higher level--that would be cutting out a huge part of the character's story.

 

[Mark CMG]

Where does the punitive approach to pc death come from?

(. . .)

Thirdly, DMs seem to justify it like this: "It's your fault you died so I'm starting you at a lower level to encourage you not to die!" This one I find the most weird and the most illogical but I know as a DM I've thought it at times. It's trying to turn something which is effectively a punishment into a reward when its clearly not.

Can't judge history based on modern sensibilities nor because you lost a few PCs.

 

[bedir than]

The Death Flag doesn't assure your death, it just means you're prepared to accept it!

I consider that the moment I pick up the pen and paper to create a new character. It will die, somehow, someway. I get to choose how it dies based on how I play. Play determines whether its life is legend in the campaign. Everyone knows Goliath (the dude from the Bible). He died from a lucky shot. Everyone knows who he is.

Maybe I'm failing entirely to understand the other side of this issue. There's a punishment in creating a new character? I've been punished 100s of times. I hope to get punished again.

 

[aramis erak]

That's a drastic misunderstanding of the purpose of "fail forward". Fail forward isn't there to make people feel better. It's there to stop the game hanging up on minor obstacles and move the plot on.

THe problem with fail-forward is that munchkins use it to avoid failing at all. Especially in games written by John Wick...

 

[Sunseeker]

THe problem with fail-forward is that munchkins use it to avoid failing at all. Especially in games written by John Wick...

Agreed. Joining my game is accepting the possibility that your character might die. They might die the first fight, they might never die. It's up to the player to make it heroic!

In my 1st 4E game I ran this deva holy-avenger type, got 'em up to level 2 before they died in the final fight of that leg of the game. But they went out fighting! And even though I really liked the character, I made the most of my death.

 

[Rod Staffwand]

Restarting at level 1 comes from the sandbox/dungeon crawl concept of D&D with PC vs. the dangers of the dungeons or the world. If you were successful, you got to level up and gain new abilities. If not, you got killed. As you leveled you could mitigate deaths but also faced new dangers (like spheres of annihilation or disintegration spells) that were even deadlier.

Advancing in level was the focus of the game. You started at level 1 and saw how far your abilities, wits and luck could take you. If you played a lot you gained knowledge on how to avoid the pitfalls (literally) of low-level, then mid-level, then high-level. You learned to avoid ghouls at close quarters and how to barbecue trolls.

Eventually your PC would reach name level and you might put them into semi-retirement. The PC gets their castle and runs their domain while you start playing a second or third character through lower levels. You might run a henchman or hireling or even a monster for a while, developing a coterie of characters over a multitude of levels. The rest of the group would be in a similar situation with primary characters, secondary characters and who knows what else readied to play.

Campaigns of this type are generally more sprawling, without a single unifying storyline like more modern adventure path campaigns. You're moving around and exploring an existing world rather than following a specific story. You might use your 13th level fighter one week to take on some fire giants and your 5th level fighter the next to face a goblin threat.

An adventure path campaign works differently with PCs expected to level throughout the campaign, facing greater and greater menaces until a BBEG is confronted and defeated. In such a game, underleveled PCs, even just one or two out of five or six can seriously jeopardize the party's chances against their foes and there often isn't time uplevel newer PCs. Thus, starting replacements at a higher level typically works better.

 

[I'm A Banana]

I consider that the moment I pick up the pen and paper to create a new character. It will die, somehow, someway. I get to choose how it dies based on how I play. Play determines whether its life is legend in the campaign. Everyone knows Goliath (the dude from the Bible). He died from a lucky shot. Everyone knows who he is.

Maybe I'm failing entirely to understand the other side of this issue. There's a punishment in creating a new character? I've been punished 100s of times. I hope to get punished again.

Hahaha, that's a fair perspective, and the Death Flag wouldn't be a good fit for your games if you enjoy the possibility of whipping up a new character and don't rest very heavily on narrative.

 

[Gnarl45]

I remember in old games, if your PC died you rolled a new one at 1st level and you joined back up with the party and continued on your way. Even if the party was 20th level, you still started at 1st. It wasn't that big a deal but it changed over time and now 20 years later it seems punitive, impractical and actually pretty weird.

First of all, there's the power disparity and the contribution the new pc can realistically make. I know we've all bought into bounded accuracy like it was a religious text, but a 1st level pc IS NOT "basically as effective" as, say a 5th level pc. The 1st level pc doesn't have the extra attack, spell slots, spell levels or hp that a 5th level pc has and will likely die in any encounter a 5th level party engages in. The only way this is workable is if the 1st level sits at the back and tries not to draw attention from monsters, which is not much fun for the player.

Secondly, there's the in-world practicality of picking up a lower level companion (that someone mentioned in the other thread): taking the extreme example, why would 20th level PCs pick up an unknown, unskilled 1st level pc? It just wouldn't happen unless they were the 'chosen one' POV character in movies.

Thirdly, DMs seem to justify it like this: "It's your fault you died so I'm starting you at a lower level to encourage you not to die!" This one I find the most weird and the most illogical but I know as a DM I've thought it at times. It's trying to turn something which is effectively a punishment into a reward when its clearly not.

So where does this come from and why on earth did it ever make sense? Is it a reaction to "everyone's a winner" sports activities? Is it some kind of weird DnD hazing?

I'm not sure what you're getting at with this post. But having mixed groups in AD&D wasn't as bad as in 3e and later editions. I don't know if you remember, but all the non-combat aspect of AD&D was more about player skill than character skill. This means that even if you're playing a 1st level character in a group of level 20s, you can still contribute and you're just as good as the others (minus the utility magic).

Secondly, the number of XP you needed to gain a new level increases exponentially. If you need 2,000 XP for level 2, you need 4,000 for level 3, etc... So you're effectively only one level behind the others after a few sessions. This stops being true at higher levels but the power curve is flater after level 10 so it's not that bad. Your Thac0 is capped at 1, your AC at -10, your saves at 1, etc... Even spells have a slower progression. If you're tossing 10d6 fireballs and your big brother is tossing 10d6+10 ones (delayed blast), you're stilll in the same ball park.

Thirdly, the mindset was different. You didn't have Excel to help you with the math and an online community that pretends they know anything about RPG-math. Math wasn't a religion back then. People also accepted that some characters were better than others because that's how it was in every single one of their favorite fantasy book.


If you're going to compare an element of an edition with the other editions, you need to look at this element within the context. Starting at level 1 could work back then because of how the game was designed. In 3e, 4e, or 5e, it just doesn't work and they needed to find something else.

 

[Sunseeker]

Hahaha, that's a fair perspective, and the Death Flag wouldn't be a good fit for your games if you enjoy the possibility of whipping up a new character and don't rest very heavily on narrative.

I rely heavily on narrative when I DM. But the actions my players take within the game should add to that narrative and it is up to my players to make the most of their deaths. Even in narrative though, sometimes deaths are meaningless.


But then I suppose there room to debate what sort of narrative you fancy, as Game of Thrones is just as much a narrative, full of often meaningless deaths as is Lord of the Rings, in which deaths are only ever heroic.