D&D 5E Not dying?

[Arnwolf666]

My group still plays that zero hit points is dead with no exceptions, and their is no revivify spell.

 

[S'mon]

The assumption is that PCs argue regarding DM decisions while NPCs don't. I don't worry much about PC arguing about my choices for NPC morale. They can have their say but it should be brief and polite, and I should be able to not give them a full, under-the-hood explanation because it may have impact on the game later on. If they can't do that then it's time for them to find a new game.

I was referring to players arguing if a GM says "You fail morale and run away". I certainly don't expect players to argue about NPC morale.

 

[ad_hoc]

If characters are never at risk of dying, then many players will find the game less rewarding and possibly downright dull. Here is an excerpt of mine from another thread regarding my suggestions on handling character death...

"Part of the art of DMing is (and shhh don't share this with your players) creating the illusion of a threat that is greater than the reality of that threat. The risk of a wipe should sometimes seem all too real, but should very rarely materialize. The risk of individual death should be almost omni-present in dangerous situations, but death should only occasionally actually happen. The risk of perma-death should be a very real concern for the player, but in most cases, given the appropriate time, money, and effort put forth, should omit the "perma" even if there are lingering effects for some time."

I entirely disagree.

The DM's job is not to deceive the players.

Everyone is playing a game together. What that game is should be clear to everyone involved.

A TPK is also not a bad thing. It's just a thing. It's a story event. If a TPK happens it doesn't have to be anyone's fault.

This doesn't mean that every encounter needs to have a high risk of TPK for it to have tension. The nice thing about D&D, 5e especially is that it is built on depleting resources over time (many encounters per long rest). So if the very first encounter of the day goes badly, PCs aren't likely to die but the players are more likely to think 'oh no, we're probably in for it later'. Maybe they can turn things around by having some great encounters, maybe they will choose to abandon the quest for the sake of safety, or maybe they will all be wiped out.

That is part of the fun.

 

[Caliban]

YES! The PCs are trolls who also happen to be immune to acid and fire.

How do you kill that which has no life?

 

[Huntsman57]

I entirely disagree.

The DM's job is not to deceive the players.

Everyone is playing a game together. What that game is should be clear to everyone involved.

A TPK is also not a bad thing. It's just a thing. It's a story event. If a TPK happens it doesn't have to be anyone's fault.

This doesn't mean that every encounter needs to have a high risk of TPK for it to have tension. The nice thing about D&D, 5e especially is that it is built on depleting resources over time (many encounters per long rest). So if the very first encounter of the day goes badly, PCs aren't likely to die but the players are more likely to think 'oh no, we're probably in for it later'. Maybe they can turn things around by having some great encounters, maybe they will choose to abandon the quest for the sake of safety, or maybe they will all be wiped out.

That is part of the fun.

The DM's job is to make sure your players are having fun. In most cases, in regards to life endangering scenarios, that means that individual characters are going to occasionally die (if they didn't, then the players wouldn't take the risk seriously anymore, with less risk the game would feel less rewarding, and they would stop having as much fun). Having said that, if the risk is so great that a character dies every other encounter...that's obviously not good, but the danger of imminent death during combat has to always feel like it's there. Showmanship is part of being a DM.

TPKs are neither here nor there. They're undesirable results because nobody wants the campaign to end, but every decade or so one of my games does end that way. It is what it is. The threat of TPKs in 5E is real, but as I said in another thread, the threat of individual death is much less so, which is specifically what I dislike about the 5E dying system.

As I mentioned elsewhere "The "wipe or everyone lives" aspect of most 5E encounters is also quite inorganic. IRL can that happen to a group of people? Sure, but more often than not people die, and others in that group survive them to carry on. That is the more likely scenario by far."

 

[MiraMels]

So winning is a given eventually. Losses may cause setbacks but since the characters always make it through, they can can just try try again until successful. That kind of makes not only dying, but the whole process of taking damage not worthy of concern. Why should a character fear the powers of enemies if he/she KNOWS that it is only a bluff?
There is no need to heal wounds, or even worry about getting enough rest, food, or water because nothing can cause any real harm.

Even should the party fail to stop the big bad from destroying the world, its no biggie because while the world dies, they are OK because they didn't give Mr. bigbad permission to kill them.

I'm going to take it in good faith that you aren't trolling, and are simply curious as to how I could possibly create interesting challenges for my players with this as a starting premise for my game.

Winning is not an eventuality, surviving is. This means players have to live with the consequences of their failures. It's not a 'respawn at the last checkpoint' mechanic, these combat encounters are frequently not things that can be attempted repeatedly, and if they are, they will not be the same the second time around. You don't get a second chance at defending a village from gnolls, even if you know that your character will come to hours later in the smouldering ruin of the town square. You could probably manage a second attempt at an assassination, but the second will happen in an entirely different set of circumstances than first. All the while, that first failed assassination attempt is causing far-reaching political consequences for the rest of the realm.

Like, I get where you are coming from, but the concerns you raise are only going to be a problem if you are sitting down to play with players who refuse to emotionally engage with the narrative world, refuse to treat NPCs like people, or refuse to consider anything but their character's ability to survive in a very basic way.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

You don't get a second chance at defending a village from gnolls, even if you know that your character will come to hours later in the smouldering ruin of the town square.

Like, I get where you are coming from, but the concerns you raise are only going to be a problem if you are sitting down to play with players who refuse to emotionally engage with the narrative world, refuse to treat NPCs like people, or refuse to consider anything but their character's ability to survive in a very basic way.

So the PCs can't die unless they want to, but it's perfectly fine for any NPC to die without consent, and you're blaming the players for not treating the NPCs like people? Do you not see the problem with that?

 

[MiraMels]

If characters are never at risk of dying, then many players will find the game less rewarding and possibly downright dull. Here is an excerpt of mine from another thread regarding my suggestions on handling character death...

"Part of the art of DMing is (and shhh don't share this with your players) creating the illusion of a threat that is greater than the reality of that threat. The risk of a wipe should sometimes seem all too real, but should very rarely materialize. The risk of individual death should be almost omni-present in dangerous situations, but death should only occasionally actually happen. The risk of perma-death should be a very real concern for the player, but in most cases, given the appropriate time, money, and effort put forth, should omit the "perma" even if there are lingering effects for some time."

Many players will find a game where they know they won't die not terribly compelling. I personally know many players who would find the "[almost omni-present] risk of individual death" to be incredibly stressful, and not conducive to having a good time. For the first camp (the players who would find no-death games incredibly dull), when I'm upfront about how I handle character death, it allows them to either opt into lethal play, or find a game that better suits their interests. (I know many DMs who run games that they would like much better, and I would refer them. Not just drop a blunt "my way of the high way, cupcake")

I don't say this to create any kind of value judgement of my approach versus yours, part of what makes this game wonderful is how simple choices of starting premise can create wildly different games to suit different tastes. I'm just trying to explain why I make the choices that I make for my games, and the contexts in which I'm making them.

 

[Cyrinishad]

So the PCs can't die unless they want to, but it's perfectly fine for any NPC to die without consent, and you're blaming the players for not treating the NPCs like people? Do you not see the problem with that?

This is starting to sound like a "Bad-Wrong-Fun" accusation... It's their table & their story. MiraMels posts don't seem to imply they're not treating NPCs like people, or blaming players for anything... It just seems like MiraMels table places a high value on narrative continuity around consistent characters. This is an entirely valid play style.

 

[MiraMels]

So the PCs can't die unless they want to, but it's perfectly fine for any NPC to die without consent, and you're blaming the players for not treating the NPCs like people? Do you not see the problem with that?

I...I'm not sure I do, but I'm also not sure I fully understand your objection. Do you mind explaining further?