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

[MasterTrancer]

In this case, why have death as a consequence of losing combat? Why not have it be unconsciousness instead (and the PC regains consciousness having been looted of cash and gear)? Or capture (and the friends spend money ransoming rather than resurrecting)?

There are any number of ways of introducing speed-bumps and/or cash-drains into the fiction of the game that don't require a PC to die.

On the same token, why bother with combat at all if you can't die? To show how the PCs are awesome?

 

[MasterTrancer]

To go back to the OP: PC death is not punishing in my book. It simply happens. I for my part as a DM try to gauge the challenge and adapt it to the party power, and I prefer it to be lower than higher to avoid "unnecessary" deaths.

But sometimes in the campaign the PCs face overwhelming threats, and they're meant not to face them but flee, and come back when they're stronger: say, they witness the summoning of a Pit Fiend, and they're low level. Should they charge in head first, or go back, and find a mean of banishing the fiend? And if they stay and fight, how do you save them? Have them captured and brought to the Nine Hells? Does the Pit Fiend reduce them to 0 HP, and leave them to their own stabilizing saving throws?

Of course the DM should avoid the slaughtering of the PCs, it's not a race bewteen players and dungeon masters, but deaths, when inserted in the proper framing, are part of the narration. Hey, a paladin death could have the PCs search for a way of traveling to Mount Celestia and pledge for his resurrection.

As always, that's my take on the game, and I don't want to impose it to anyone (surely not to my players if they're not agreeing).

 

[transtemporal]

IIRC True Resurrection doesn't. Or a wish. Nor a god. Was it a Paladin? Does the Power he worship(ped) see his role in the world not yet fulfilled? Fine, the Paladin gets resurrected, maybe after a quest, maybe with a powerful geas bestowed upon him.

The party was only 2nd level at the time so that magic wasn't accessible to us (or even known to us in all likelihood).

As for Gods personally intervening, we stopped doing that thanks to one particular DM who showed us exactly what DM favoritism cheese looks like...

 

[Ranes]

Such strong normative and empirical claims!

Should I add 'in my opinion' to everything I write?

What is the evidence that "only by having taken that risk and survived are high level PCs truly appreciated." I mean, there are lots of things in life that I truly love and appreciate (I think of my family first of all) and I do my best to avoid exposing them to risks because of that. In my experience as a GM and player, what makes a character be truly appreciated and thought of fondly by a player is that the PC participated in a memorable campaign. What makes a campaign memorable can be a range of things - the story of the campaign is an important element but not the only factor - but I've never felt that degree of risk of PC death was a part of that.

Of course many different things can make a campaign memorable. My belief, however, is that a player is likely to appreciate having attained a high level more, if said player has had to survive the campaign's hazards longer, as in from a low level.

In the real world, there are many memorable events, and challenges, and confrontations, where the principle stake is not the death of one of the protagonists. In fiction the same is true. The risk of death doesn't seem to me to have any special importance as a stake in an RPG. And if it is the sole thing at stake, or the only thing that matters to the participants, that suggests to me that the other possible sorts of stakes aren't really being brought into focus in play.

I did not say that the only thing that matters in a campaign is the risk of death to its participant PCs. However, such risk is undeniably central to most, hence my contention.

I was not discussing at all any other possible merits of a campaign. You are, of course, right to point out that campaigns can be memorable for other reasons. In my opinion.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Should I add 'in my opinion' to everything I write?

Nah. But when you say something "has" to be a certain way, that "only when" X, it doesn't come across as an opinion. It comes across as, "This is how gaming works." In a forum where some people actually do make statements that way and mean them as "facts" rather than opinions, it's generally a good idea to use less-strident terms.

I did not say that the only thing that matters in a campaign is the risk of death to its participant PCs. However, such risk is undeniably central to most, hence my contention.

"Most" what? Most players? Most campaigns? I don't think either of those things is "undeniable." Particularly when the general trend of game design has moved away from the ultramax lethality/"Fantasy Vietnam" style. The rise of the OSR gaming community shows that interest in the high-lethality mode is still alive and kicking, but it's nowhere near "most" campaigns (nor most players' experiences) these days.

 

[MasterTrancer]

The party was only 2nd level at the time so that magic wasn't accessible to us (or even known to us in all likelihood).

As for Gods personally intervening, we stopped doing that thanks to one particular DM who showed us exactly what DM favoritism cheese looks like...

I can't answer for any other DM, only for what it could be done at my table.

I probably have missed the point, and for that I am sorry and ask you a question: what is bothering you (or the player of the said Paladin, if it wasn't you)? That the PC was a concept dear to you, and that you would have had the chance to explore it more deeply? That the PC was dear to the party, and so his loss would be felt, because of strategic assets, or maybe roleplay? Did you (or his player) became strongly attached to him?

From my point of view (and I stretch the my part), if the PC loss was so difficult to overcome then the party with the DM could have worked out how to lessen it, by having a quest resulting in the Paladin being brought back to life. Having him just popping back in the party would greatly diminish, in my own view, the heroic deed of keeping the doorway in the first place, and this especially from the narrative POV which is mentioned in other posts.

 

[Ranes]

Nah. But when you say something "has" to be a certain way, that "only when" X, it doesn't come across as an opinion. It comes across as, "This is how gaming works." In a forum where some people actually do make statements that way and mean them as "facts" rather than opinions, it's generally a good idea to use less-strident terms.

In discussion of D&D, I can usually discern between stated opinion and stated fact from context.

"Most" what? Most players? Most campaigns? I don't think either of those things is "undeniable." Particularly when the general trend of game design has moved away from the ultramax lethality/"Fantasy Vietnam" style. The rise of the OSR gaming community shows that interest in the high-lethality mode is still alive and kicking, but it's nowhere near "most" campaigns (nor most players' experiences) these days.

I'm not saying most games (of D&D) aim for 'high-lethality', however you want to define that. I'm saying that most games of D&D feature a risk of PC death. And they clearly do. Almost every published adventure in the game's history does that and they will, I bet, continue to do so.

 

[Bluenose]

Of course many different things can make a campaign memorable. My belief, however, is that a player is likely to appreciate having attained a high level more, if said player has had to survive the campaign's hazards longer, as in from a low level.

There are genres and games where "leveling up" would not be appropriate but where players nevertheless appreciate long-lasting characters more. Reaching high levels is incidental to being a character who can be remembered fondly.

 

[Ranes]

I'm not saying otherwise, Bluenose.

 

[pemerton]

On the same token, why bother with combat at all if you can't die? To show how the PCs are awesome?

I'm not sure I follow. You suggested that death is not a punishment because the PC can be resurrected.

If there is a general expectation that resurrection of dead PCs is available, then "death" isn't really death - it is a type of cash-soaking speed bump. Given that there are other cash-soaking speed bumps available which, on balance, might have less of an impact on verisimilitude, why not just go with them?

Should I add 'in my opinion' to everything I write?

No need, I knew it was your opinion. What struck me was that it expressed such a strong view about what "we, as players" have to do.

If you were only stating what you, as a player, prefer to do than I don't doubt that you are correct!

a player is likely to appreciate having attained a high level more, if said player has had to survive the campaign's hazards longer, as in from a low level.

I don't think this is generally true. My reason for that is my own experience.

I think that high level PCs are more likely to be memorable, everything else being equal, if the campaign lasts for a longer rather than a shorter time. I think this is similar to [MENTION=49017]Bluenose[/MENTION]'s point: long-lasting play tends to be memorable.

But in my experience if a campaign lasts a long time than a character who was brought in above 1st level, and played a significant role in that campaign, may well be memorable even though that character was not played all the way from the lowest level. In thinking of the longest-running campaigns that I've run, there were very memorabe and significant characters brought in at a range of levels above 1st: 2nd, 3rd, 7th, and mid-teens.

It is the duration and depth of play, not survival per se, that in my experience makes the difference. The "accomplishment", such as it is, is not the player accomplishment of keeping the character alive, but rather the social/group accomplishment of keeping the campaign active and engaging.