DM advice: How do you NOT kill your party?

[iserith]

Or without PCs being in danger of death? Is there always something else on the line they really care about?

Sure. I've posted some of those kinds of scenarios on the forums before. It's not as easy as a life-or-death struggle to design, certainly. But doable.

Yep, but unlike 'immersion,' it has one. It's when the player is presented with choices, options, & checks that actually mean nothing - regardless, the results are already decided. But, the player isn't given enough information to divine that fact.
'Placebo rolls' behind the DM screen, the classic magician's force, fudging a die roll behind the screen - all 'illusionism.'
It's a newish game-theory label for a classic (almost ubiquitous back in the day) DMing style.

That sounds like some version of hell to me, so I would certainly not want to inflict that upon my players.

Nope. It's just limiting the information you provide the player, no more dishonest than not showing them the map of the dungeon. That's the problem with Game Design Theory labels, they'll strike people all wrong.

There's a difference when there's an understanding that the game mechanics are being used to decide between distinct outcomes and then one of the parties to that agreement breaks it. I do have respect for people who admit to fudging in advance though. That's at least honest and players against that sort of thing can opt out.

It's the 5e forum so 'run something with less of a tendency to drop random/unintended/pointless character deaths in your lap' isn't an option.

OTOH, modding rules is entirely kosher in 5e. So if the issue seems to be sudden deaths from damage spikes in non-deadly encounters at low level, increase low-level hps, or increase the instant death threshold to -(CON+max hps) it'll make a big difference at low level, hardly matter at high. If it seems to be players doing stupid stuff, institute Common Sense Saves. etc...

It still leaves the stakes as life-or-death though, however more remote.

 

[Schmoe]

What I prefer to do is figure out a way where there can be TPKs and the system doesn't melt down.

I'm curious, what would such a system look like?

 

[TheSword]

I'm curious, what would such a system look like?

Game of Thrones

 

[The Crimson Binome]

I'm curious, what would such a system look like?

From what I recall, Legend of the Five Rings has a legacy mechanic where new characters are empowered based on what the previous character managed to accomplish before death.

If the entire party died, but all of the new characters started with bonuses (and/or magic items) based on the old characters, that might keep a player invested in the game at hand (rather than losing interest and starting a new campaign).

 

[iserith]

I'm curious, what would such a system look like?

The easiest way is to just make sure you have backup characters with a "trapdoor." A trapdoor is something established in the game that would allow for one character to be replaced by another one as easily as you can manage. Then just make sure either you're not running a set storyline or that the plot you're presenting doesn't hinge on a particular character or characters.

Do this and know what it is to truly be free!

 

[Tony Vargas]

That sounds like some version of hell to me, so I would certainly not want to inflict that upon my players.

Well, I did use words like 'classic DMing style.' It's definitely not too modern or indy, but it's very D&D, particularly the era of D&D 5e tries hardest to evoke.

There's a difference when there's an understanding that the game mechanics are being used to decide between distinct outcomes and then one of the parties to that agreement breaks it

Illusionism doesn't break that sort of agreement, rather it doesn't enter into it in the first place. Players call out actions, the DM calls for or makes rolls from behind the screen, /then/ the players find out what happens. There's never an explicit guarantee that those rolls are the sole or even a determining factor in the result, nor is what the alternate distinct outcomes may be known established for the player beforehand. The player can make assumptions, of course, often the same ones the character would in his place, which aids in that elusive 'immersion' thing.

It still leaves the stakes as life-or-death though, however more remote.

The more remote, the less the issue. Like someone said up-thread, 1/10 sessions in 5e vs 1/3 in 3e. Mod the system a little, you could bring it down quite a lot more, even to the point it never comes up in a reasonable campaign (say one starting at 3rd and progressing through 12th or so).

I'm curious, what would such a system look like?

Paranoia.

 

[Nevvur]

Whether I do something to avert a TPK is a policy I set during session-0 when we discuss how to handle character death. It's a group majority decision, and I'm perfectly comfortable running things according to the table's preference. Historically, my players have favored a "let the dice fall where they may, and let us dig our own graves" attitude. They never even had an imminent TPK for me to avert, though they amassed 5 PC deaths over about 3 years and 150 sessions.

My current campaign is almost entirely driven by PC background elements. It can absorb the shock of 1 or 2 PC deaths at a time, but not in rapid succession, and it would feel weird to me if at least one of the original PCs didn't survive til the end of the campaign. It isn't some plug and play adventure where another group of heroes can just pick up where the last guys failed. Even if another group of heroes did show up to resume the quest, the threats of the day will probably lack the personal and emotional impact they would have had on the original PCs. My players have also provided me some of the most interesting and fleshed out characters I've ever had the pleasure of running a game for. All this is to say that a TPK would be extremely disruptive.

We're only 6 sessions in, and I've softballed them on three separate occasions. I'm not going to get into the nitty gritty details, but the first one was an incomprehensibly bad decision by one player that would've killed another player's character, the second was a mistake -I- made in setting up an encounter, and the third was a combination of cruel dice and poor decisions made by the party.

For these "plot armor PCs," each situation required a different method of handling. In the first one, we stopped the game and talked about the player's choice, and allowed him to retract it. In the second one, I used sub-optimal tactics for the NPCs. The third was a 3-phase encounter where they were on the verge of defeat near the end of the 2nd phase, so I aborted the 3rd (that was never part of my plan, but there was sufficient reason in-game for it to happen)

When I look at the frequency of these softballs (50% of my sessions!?) it makes me feel a little uneasy. Then I observe my players and realize they are more engaged, providing more positive feedback, and ostensibly having more fun than any other group I've run games for.

 

[iserith]

Illusionism doesn't break that sort of agreement, rather it doesn't enter into it in the first place. Players call out actions, the DM calls for or makes rolls from behind the screen, /then/ the players find out what happens. There's never an explicit guarantee that those rolls are the sole or even a determining factor in the result, nor is what the alternate distinct outcomes may be known established for the player beforehand. The player can make assumptions, of course, often the same ones the character would in his place, which aids in that elusive 'immersion' thing.

If the players are aware of the illusionism, is it still illusionism? Question for the philosophers perhaps.

The more remote, the less the issue. Like someone said up-thread, 1/10 sessions in 5e vs 1/3 in 3e. Mod the system a little, you could bring it down quite a lot more, even to the point it never comes up in a reasonable campaign (say one starting at 3rd and progressing through 12th or so).

A mitigation of the issue but not a complete solution I would say. There's still the odd chance of the "inglorious death" by kobolds.

 

[Tony Vargas]

If the players are aware of the illusionism, is it still illusionism? Question for the philosophers perhaps.

If the players are in on it, it's apparently 'participationalism.' Instead of 'Right or Left?' it's "hey, the adventure's that way, or this way if you prefer..." Instead of "You take 30 damage" "Whew! I only had 32!" It's "You take 45 damage." "Darn I only had 32!" "Are you good with dying for this fight?" "No, I was hoping to die defending my ancestral keep in the siege we're planning a few levels from now." "OK, 30 points then." "Got it."

A mitigation of the issue but not a complete solution I would say.

Yep. Illusionism or 'death is off the table' are more complete solutions. But, as you fix up the system, you could use the former less and less as you go, while the latter still need to be employed up front. ...hmmm.

It becomes a de-facto complete solution if you make it through a campaign without anything going south, though.

 

[iserith]

Yep. Illusionism or 'death is off the table' are more complete solutions. But, as you fix up the system, you could use the former less and less as you go, while the latter still need to be employed up front. ...hmmm.

It becomes a de-facto complete solution if you make it through a campaign without anything going south, though.

I just don't think there's a system fix for it that keeps death on the table and illusionism sounds like Forge Waffle for "dishonesty." My position is also that the system doesn't need fixing. It's not a mechanics thing, but a technique thing as far as I can tell. If you want death to be a real possibility, keep the stakes as they are and prepare for that possibility - good advice for both DMs and players in my view.