D&D 5E How many PCs have you had die?

[Morinth]

Engaging in combat is a choice the players make. As well, games that include a lot of opportunities for combat do not necessarily lack for story (which emerges as a result of play). I'm not entirely sure what you mean by "character buy-in." If you mean players getting attached to their characters, such games do not necessarily lack for that either.

If I'm on my third PC in your campaign, I can pretty much guarantee you that she isn't as well thought-out and developed as my first PC was. That first PC had a backstory, a unique characterization and voice, and she interacted with the world in very character-oriented ways. I probably even created a character illustration for her. My third PC is essentially a disposable respawn, and all the other PCs are just really well-developed NPCs. If I started the game as one character, and had relationships with the other PCs as that character, and then she dies, well, so does that buy-in. Character 2 needs her own buy-in, she doesn't know these people and she doesn't care about the same things Character 1 did. And Character 3 is just along for the ride, she doesn't know these people, she doesn't care, she's just there so the player can hang out with her friends and roll some dice or whatever.

Again, combat is a choice the players make. If they find themselves outmatched, it is their choice to stay and fight or to find another way to defeat their enemies.

Also, I don't see why a "random encounter" shouldn't be as cool, fun, and memorable as the scene involving the evil sorceress. I endeavor to make every single challenge I present as awesome as possible. All of them are part of the emergent story.

If I really have a "choice" whether to engage in combat, I can guarantee you that I'm pretty much never going to choose to engage in combat. I will talk to NPCs until the GM is blue in the face, but I'll always run away from a fight. If combat is an almost guaranteed death sentence, why would I ever choose it? How do I know this random dude isn't a 17th level ranger in disguise? If I care about my PC at all, I'll do everything I can to keep her alive. If I don't care about her, at some point I will just throw her off a cliff myself, and see just how many suspiciously similar substitutes I can mow down in the game.

 

[arlem]

Ive been playing D&D since the blue box off and on. (I completely missed 3rd and 3.5) I remember losing an entire party (yeah we had one player and one DM most of the time so if we did modules we played groups of characters) to the Tomb of Horrors. The wizard, Ancalagon the Black was the last man standing. He made it all the way to the demi-lich and was soul-devoured in the first round.

That wasn't the last I saw of him though. He was made into the surprise end-villain of a small one-off, one piece of graph paper labyrinth-tomb that my best friend ran me through later.

As a DM, I can't recall killing anyone in the old days, but in the past month, I have experienced my first 2 PC deaths.

1. In my Pathfinder game that I am running, my players were facing a mummy who was also a monk. Nerash the tiefling magus smacked the mummy for a good 1/3 of their hp. The mummy responded with a flurry of blows, 2 natural 20s and a normal hit. Both crits confirmed and poor Nerash was already well past his negative Con score, so the final blow pulped his skull. The player rolled a new character as raise dead was beyond the party's or the local temple's capabilities.

2. In my current 5e game (trying to avoid spoilers) our female tiefling wizard got in the way of a fleeing vampire spawn who grappled and bit her. Max hit points reduced to 0 (much scarier than energy drain) and that was the end of Ariagoria. The paladin, lumbering and slow, split the spawn in half with his next blow. Again, raising the dead was beyond the party's capabilities.

 

[iserith]

If I'm on my third PC in your campaign, I can pretty much guarantee you that she isn't as well thought-out and developed as my first PC was. That first PC had a backstory, a unique characterization and voice, and she interacted with the world in very character-oriented ways. I probably even created a character illustration for her. My third PC is essentially a disposable respawn, and all the other PCs are just really well-developed NPCs. If I started the game as one character, and had relationships with the other PCs as that character, and then she dies, well, so does that buy-in.

Nobody's forcing you to do that, of course. At my table, I request that players provide only a Twitter-length statement that establishes broad strokes about character personality and backstory. The rest is established and developed during play where I think it belongs.

Character 2 needs her own buy-in, she doesn't know these people and she doesn't care about the same things Character 1 did. And Character 3 is just along for the ride, she doesn't know these people, she doesn't care, she's just there so the player can hang out with her friends and roll some dice or whatever.

That's your choice to establish the character's relationships and goals that way. You can choose otherwise. In my campaigns, for example, it's understood that every PC knows the other PCs from the get-go and has a history with them that the players are free to establish. So Characters 2 & 3 will already know the party and have similar goals. If you're playing in my game, Characters 2 and 3 will probably already have been created as backup characters so that character death doesn't interfere with the player's ability to engage with the game.

If I really have a "choice" whether to engage in combat, I can guarantee you that I'm pretty much never going to choose to engage in combat. I will talk to NPCs until the GM is blue in the face, but I'll always run away from a fight. If combat is an almost guaranteed death sentence, why would I ever choose it? How do I know this random dude isn't a 17th level ranger in disguise? If I care about my PC at all, I'll do everything I can to keep her alive. If I don't care about her, at some point I will just throw her off a cliff myself, and see just how many suspiciously similar substitutes I can mow down in the game.

I think this is a rather sour attitude to have in a game where (1) we're meant to be playing bold adventurers confronting deadly perils and (2) the goals of play are to have fun and create an exciting, memorable story during play. And what would make you believe that combat is "an almost guaranteed death sentence" anyway? It depends on the choices you make during play. Did you assess the threat (e.g. the random dude/disguised badass) before engaging? Did you mitigate failure as best you can without bogging down the game? Did you spend your resources wisely? Did you engage in effective teamwork? etc.

 

[ccs]

If I'm on my third PC in your campaign, I can pretty much guarantee you that she isn't as well thought-out and developed as my first PC was. That first PC had a backstory, a unique characterization and voice, and she interacted with the world in very character-oriented ways. I probably even created a character illustration for her. My third PC is essentially a disposable respawn, and all the other PCs are just really well-developed NPCs. If I started the game as one character, and had relationships with the other PCs as that character, and then she dies, well, so does that buy-in. Character 2 needs her own buy-in, she doesn't know these people and she doesn't care about the same things Character 1 did. And Character 3 is just along for the ride, she doesn't know these people, she doesn't care, she's just there so the player can hang out with her friends and roll some dice or whatever.




If I really have a "choice" whether to engage in combat, I can guarantee you that I'm pretty much never going to choose to engage in combat. I will talk to NPCs until the GM is blue in the face, but I'll always run away from a fight. If combat is an almost guaranteed death sentence, why would I ever choose it? How do I know this random dude isn't a 17th level ranger in disguise? If I care about my PC at all, I'll do everything I can to keep her alive. If I don't care about her, at some point I will just throw her off a cliff myself, and see just how many suspiciously similar substitutes I can mow down in the game.

Ahh, so you'll essentially try & blackmail the DM. "Kill my 1st character & I'll stop trying."
Btw, combat is not the only way you can die....

 

[Morinth]

Nobody's forcing you to do that, of course. At my table, I request that players provide only a Twitter-length statement that establishes broad strokes about character personality and backstory. The rest is established and developed during play where I think it belongs.

Well, if I get 160 characters to develop my PC's personality and motivations, I guess I already know she's disposable and I'm playing her accordingly.

That's your choice to establish the character's relationships and goals that way. You can choose otherwise. In my campaigns, for example, it's understood that every PC knows the other PCs from the get-go and has a history with them that the players are free to establish. So Characters 2 & 3 will already know the party and have similar goals. If you're playing in my game, Characters 2 and 3 will probably already have been created as backup characters so that character death doesn't interfere with the player's ability to engage with the game.

Again, if I've got 2 respawns waiting in the wings, I know they're pretty much just empty husks to be thrown into the fire, and I'm playing them accordingly. This is clearly not a game where the individual characters matter. I am probably not "role playing" anything, I'm playing it like it's a board game or something, so there's no disconnect.

I think this is a rather sour attitude to have in a game where (1) we're meant to be playing bold adventurers confronting deadly perils and (2) the goals of play are to have fun and create an exciting, memorable story during play. And what would make you believe that combat is "an almost guaranteed death sentence" anyway? It depends on the choices you make during play. Did you assess the threat (e.g. the random dude/disguised badass) before engaging? Did you mitigate failure as best you can without bogging down the game? Did you spend your resources wisely? Did you engage in effective teamwork? etc.

I don't think it's a sour attitude at all, I think it's a mismatch of player and GM. I like character stuff. If the GM handwaves all the character stuff and it's just about lurching from combat to combat, then the person who needs to adjust is me. So in this instance, I can either stop caring about my PC and off her at the earliest opportunity, or try to keep her alive. If I want to keep her alive, I have to avoid combat. But more than likely if I agreed to be in this game in the first place, the goal for me will be to see how many characters I can get killed. I doubt the GM would even notice my "sour attitude" when I'm sending these lemmings off the cliff with such glee. I can't change the game I'm in, but I can certainly find a way to have fun within it. I'm certainly not going to sit in the corner and sulk.

 

[Morinth]

Ahh, so you'll essentially try & blackmail the DM. "Kill my 1st character & I'll stop trying."
Btw, combat is not the only way you can die....

Not at all. I think of it as simply adjusting my expectations and aligning them with the group's goals. If my GM cared about character stuff, PCs wouldn't be dropping like flies. If the GM doesn't care about character stuff, why am I putting any effort into that sort of thing? Better to play the game I'm in, rather than the game I wanted to be in. It can still be fun, I just have to have fun in different ways. It becomes more of an intellectual exercise, or just "for the lulz". In all likelihood, the GM doesn't even notice what I'm doing.

 

[iserith]

Well, if I get 160 characters to develop my PC's personality and motivations, I guess I already know she's disposable and I'm playing her accordingly.

You get 140 characters and that's just what you communicate to the other players and DM. Few want to read a lengthy backstory in my experience, least of all me. I'd rather you show me who your character is during the adventure than read about it before play. If you want to write a lengthy treatment, go for it. Just don't expect me to read it.

Again, if I've got 2 respawns waiting in the wings, I know they're pretty much just empty husks to be thrown into the fire, and I'm playing them accordingly. This is clearly not a game where the individual characters matter. I am probably not "role playing" anything, I'm playing it like it's a board game or something, so there's no disconnect.

You're wrong in your assumption that individual characters don't matter. The rest is all just a choice you are making which comes off as rather passive aggressive. You can make a different choice. It's entirely in your control.

I don't think it's a sour attitude at all, I think it's a mismatch of player and GM. I like character stuff. If the GM handwaves all the character stuff and it's just about lurching from combat to combat, then the person who needs to adjust is me. So in this instance, I can either stop caring about my PC and off her at the earliest opportunity, or try to keep her alive. If I want to keep her alive, I have to avoid combat. But more than likely if I agreed to be in this game in the first place, the goal for me will be to see how many characters I can get killed. I doubt the GM would even notice my "sour attitude" when I'm sending these lemmings off the cliff with such glee. I can't change the game I'm in, but I can certainly find a way to have fun within it. I'm certainly not going to sit in the corner and sulk.

I don't see how you go from "character death is a thing that can happen in this game" to "the GM handwaves 'all the character stuff.'" Perhaps you can explain that to us.

 

[Sacrosanct]

I think there's a lot of cross talk going on here, which is missing the entire point of the game: to have fun. If you're not having fun at someone's table because either your PC is dying too often, or none of the PCs ever seem to be really at risk of dying, then don't play. Find a group that you enjoy. Luckily, despite some of the broad differences in preferences on display here, everyone has found a group of like minded individuals. No point in really arguing about how "your table would suck for me", since we're not gaming at each other's tables.

 

[Morinth]

You get 140 characters and that's just what you communicate to the other players and DM. Few want to read a lengthy backstory in my experience, least of all me. I'd rather you show me who your character is during the adventure than read about it before play. If you want to write a lengthy treatment, go for it. Just don't expect me to read it.

See, yeah, if the GM isn't at all interested in my character's story, why should I come up with one? It won't really make a difference to you or anyone else, so it's just a waste of my time. Regardless, your experience won't change. You'll have me at your table, on time, with my dice and books and characters all ready to go. My turns in combat will go quickly, because I've read up on how to play this character class and I've been paying attention during the other players' turns. My combat turn will make logical sense, because if I've learned one thing about combat it's that the opportunities to do anything truly outside the box are few—though I probably will have a couple of such contingencies ready if the opportunity presents itself, since I am nothing if not prepared. You won't even notice that anything is missing, because everything you would expect to see from a player is present, and I am pleasant and jovial with my tablemates and not at all disruptive or uncooperative. But if I'm creating three characters at the start of the game, I am just not going to be able to devote any time or energy to character stuff. I'm too busy trying to get all those character sheets up to snuff and making sure I know how to play my role in combat when my turn comes. If some kind of character develops during play, great. If not, so what. Nobody at this table really cares, so I'm certainly not going to.

You're wrong in your assumption that individual characters don't matter. The rest is all just a choice you are making which comes off as rather passive aggressive. You can make a different choice. It's entirely in your control.

What's passive aggressive about it? It might be passive, but it's not aggressive. Again, there's no downside for you as the GM. So what if my characters aren't role-played to the hilt? Don't you have bigger fish to fry?

I don't see how you go from "character death is a thing that can happen in this game" to "the GM handwaves 'all the character stuff.'" Perhaps you can explain that to us.

Well, you've just said you don't want to read my backstory, and that I have to be concise in communicating the concept of my character to the other players. I assume that philosophy carries through the game. So yeah, nuance and texture are out the window. Not sure why that's a bad thing from your perspective, especially since on your side of the screen there is literally no difference. You think you have the Insight to detect that I'm dissatisfied in any way? You don't, trust me. Because I found a way to not be dissatisfied and I'm enjoying your game for what it is. I'm probably enjoying the opportunity to play so many different classes and backgrounds, so that when I do get to play in a real character-based campaign, I won't have to waste a lot of time learning the combat mechanics for that class, and I will have a sense of the dynamics of the build, and how to tweak it to maximize character stuff. I really don't see how you lose anything in this scenario at all.

 

[Morinth]

I think there's a lot of cross talk going on here, which is missing the entire point of the game: to have fun. If you're not having fun at someone's table because either your PC is dying too often, or none of the PCs ever seem to be really at risk of dying, then don't play. Find a group that you enjoy. Luckily, despite some of the broad differences in preferences on display here, everyone has found a group of like minded individuals. No point in really arguing about how "your table would suck for me", since we're not gaming at each other's tables.

Oh, I have found lots of groups that I enjoy playing with, and the RP stuff varies widely among them. I simply adjust my expectations and enjoy the game I'm playing, and don't try to force it to be something it isn't. I'm pretty adaptable that way. I honestly think I could have fun at any table, because I'm there to have fun. I am not there to force my preferred style onto the game. I am not going to be playing Scrabble while everyone else wants to play Monopoly.