D&D 5E Let 'em live or die?

[Umbran]

Generally when I make suggestions about D&D I am assuming you have players that actually want to play D&D/

I am establishing that threat of death is not universally seen as necessary. It is a choice.

So, then we get into establishing what it actually does, and why you may want it or not, and to what degree.

 

[Helldritch]

1) Sure. But that's not interesting, now is it? Why choose the explicitly less interesting road?



2) Again, yes, you can do that. But why do it that way? What does this choice add to a game?

1 Because it is more realistic this way? The baron or whatever will not go out of his way for nobodies but for true heroes, he will. Reknown must be earned. Not given. And when reknown has reached a certain, a TPK can be just a set back from which a group might come back. In first edition, one of my groups went down against a powerful lich. You're dead I said. We will make new characters next game. Give me your character's sheets that I may update the lich's treasure for the next potential group to attack it. Players were sad, mad and a bit frustrated but understood the lich had killed them.

The next session. I started with that sentence:"You died. But you wake up in the abbey of St-Solar. Abbot Hickab, gets near you and say that it has been a year since they've had any news. As per the king's request, they used the tooth you had provided 10 years ago to resurrect you....
I never finished my speech. Players were cheering. They were high levels. They had prepared this eventuality almost a year and a half of real time before that and had forgotten about this. This is what I call background and an earned continuation. Yes, they did not have their magic items, but they could have their revenge.

With a first level group? 5th? Or even 10th? I would not have lift a finger. They were the ones that had taken the precaution, but had forgotten about. I did not. So I used the trump card they had given me to bring back their 15th level characters.

But what has a 1st level character accomplish to earn such a bring back? Nothing. I strongly feel that a character needs to establish itself with contacts, allies and friends. This takes time, role play and a good chunk of work to accomplish. Some characters earn this relatively fast. I had a 7th level group rescued by a group they had saved. A good lesson in making friends they learned. But saving a character for the sake of saving it? No way.

2) Avenging a dear one is as old as humanity itself. It is as good a reason as any to adventure and seek the killer of your sibbling. We used that a lot in BECMI and in 1ed. We would use the revenge trope and the character was already known (sometime more, sometimes less) by the group. It was making integration faster and more believable up to a certain point.

Again, the more actual contacts and allies a character makes throughout its adventure, the less likely it will perma die. Mid level characters can achieve such a fame when circumstances are right. A high level might not if played like a careless bast**d....

 

[Guest 6801328]

That is why I've always been cautious (if not downright hostile) against long back story for 1st level characters. Anything more than a paragraph make me raise an interogative, suspicious and cautious eyebrow.

Background should come trough playing the character, not from a story written.

We definitely agree on this. I usually start with a "backstory" that's summarized in about a paragraph. Then as I play I'll start filling in the details, usually just to add color to the story. And often it's just that something new and fun occurs to me, and that becomes part of the character's persona. So my characters start off as pretty 1-dimensional at 1st level, but in between 5 and 10 they start to get really interesting and unique.

 

[Helldritch]

We definitely agree on this. I usually start with a "backstory" that's summarized in about a paragraph. Then as I play I'll start filling in the details, usually just to add color to the story. And often it's just that something new and fun occurs to me, and that becomes part of the character's persona. So my characters start off as pretty 1-dimensional at 1st level, but in between 5 and 10 they start to get really interesting and unique.

Yess! This is exactly the kind of play I want expect and wish from my players. You adapt your character with the events that affect it. You are defined not by a story written in advance, but as an ongoing journey where your character evolves, changes and deepens in scope and attitudes. A 1st level character must earned its badges of honor.

 

[Umbran]

1 Because it is more realistic this way?

Is "realistic" part of your player's goals?

Because, we are in general talking about a game with cat-people, wizards flinging fireballs, dragons the size of a house flying through the air, and rogues who can do significant damage to house-sized dragons with rapiers. Oh, and magic that brings people back from the dead.

So, it really pays to figure out what "realistic" means in this context, and if your players care about it.

But what has a 1st level character accomplish to earn such a bring back?

Earn? So, it sounds to me like there's another style choice at work here, applying a sort of work ethic to characters (and by extension, the players) - if you don't "earn" life, then death shall be your reward.

And it is that extension to the players I am interested in. The player is at the table looking for a good time. Once they are at the table, they shouldn't have to earn a good time. "You don't play well and long enough, you can have a crummy night," sounds sub-optimal, to me. So, making sure that the players actually find this fun, rather than just a thing they have to put up with, seems appropriate.

 

[Shiroiken]

It depend on what kind of DM you want to be. My players are well aware that I'm a "killer DM," which used to have a completely different definition*. If the characters die, even if only through the fault of poor dice rolls, they die. There may be reasons and ways for characters to return (resurrection IS an aspect of the standard setting after all), but they are things that need to be done by the PCs, not by DM intervention.

Other DMs are more lenient, preferring to avoid PC death. In that case, intelligent enemies should subdue, rather than kill, allowing the PCs a later chance to live/escape. This shouldn't be done after the fact, IMO, such as after they failed 3 Death Saves. If so, you telegraph that death is irrelevant, since the DM will intervene to save the PCs.


*back in the day, a "killer DM" was one who never allowed the players a chance of success, regularly killing the PCs with unstoppable traps and creatures. They would often change the situation mid-session if the players start to succeed, since being DM was a power trip, rather than a responsibility.

 

[DND_Reborn]

Without the threat of death in the game, go write a book together instead.
If you can't write, take turns reading one to each other.
Worst case scenario, just sit around and watch a movie (make fun of it or something) or play MtG.

A couple sessions ago when I was running Frostmaiden, the party faced a TPK. I asked them, "What do you want to do? We can spend the rest of the session making new PCs or you'll be captured and see if you can manage to escape?" (FWIW, the players made some really BAD choices, so personally I was fine with a TPK...) They discussed it and chose capture, so we played it out and they managed to escape, defeat the baddies, and ultimately win the day. Unfortunately, two PCs died prior to capture during the battle, but those players handled some NPCs (also prisoners) and later on turned them into their new PCs.

So, yeah, death can be handled in lots of ways, but if you don't have it, why bother playing IMO...

 

[iserith]

So, yeah, death can be handled in lots of ways, but if you don't have it, why bother playing IMO...

There are many ways to fail that don't result in death. Death is just one form of failure. And it's not even necessarily a failure of the goals of play.

But, if death is on the table, as DM it's good practice not to point your metaphorical gun at something you aren't willing to kill. It's obvious when the DM flinches and, for many, that's very dissatisfying. Take it off the table before you do that, I say.

 

[DND_Reborn]

There are many ways to fail that don't result in death. Death is just one form of failure. And it's not even necessarily a failure of the goals of play.

Death is the ultimate form of failure.

But, this isn't about failure (as you say, and I agree, "failure" can take many forms), IMO, it is about having a real risk in the game where you are possibly losing something you care* about.

Without the threat of death, the game gets ridiculous IMO and pointless because you are basically saying the PCs can't lose! They might not win, but the game would result in a stalemate. Or, given enough "chances", they eventually will win by sheer luck alone. For instance, a high enough level PC could kill an ancient dragon with their bare hands with enough repeats.

Now, I'll freely admit I feel a bit badly (but hey, I get over it LOL!) when a PC dies just due to bad luck on a die roll. Otherwise, frankly, I have never met a DM who wasn't willing the kill the PCs... why wouldn't you??? Boggles my mind, honestly.

(*Assuming you care about your PCs... some players don't so death isn't a threat to them. )

 

[iserith]

Death is the ultimate form of failure.

But, this isn't about failure (as you say, and I agree, "failure" can take many forms), IMO, it is about having a real risk in the game where you are possibly losing something you care* about.

Without the threat of death, the game gets ridiculous IMO and pointless because you are basically saying the PCs can't lose! They might not win, but the game would result in a stalemate. Or, given enough "chances", they eventually will win by sheer luck alone. For instance, a high enough level PC could kill an ancient dragon with their bare hands with enough repeats.

Now, I'll freely admit I feel a bit badly (but hey, I get over it LOL!) when a PC dies just due to bad luck on a die roll. Otherwise, frankly, I have never met a DM who wasn't willing the kill the PCs... why wouldn't you??? Boggles my mind, honestly.

(*Assuming you care about your PCs... some players don't so death isn't a threat to them. )

Please explain how these two thoughts live in harmony in your head:

"... and I agree, "failure" can take many forms."
"Without the threat of death, the game gets ridiculous IMO and pointless because you are basically saying the PCs can't lose!"

Because if failure can take many forms, as you agree it does, then even if there is no death, the PCs can lose. The key is making sure that what is at stake is at least as compelling or more compelling than life or death.