D&D 5E Do PCs at your table have script immunity?

[Norton]

I also understand most players don't want to invest a lot of time and energy into a PC who can die at any time. There are several reasons why it can be disruptive to the game, as well.

I've found no moment shifts the game's treatment of PC death more acutely than when a player brags about the brand new expensive mini they just had delivered. Guess they need to stick around as long as possible.

It's also my experience that the death of a well played and beloved NPC can inject enough risk in a game to keep it honest. But for the most part, option 3 is my choice.

 

[DEFCON 1]

With the number of players I usually have at my table and the amount of healing and/or "stop death" spells... it is extremely rare for a character to permanently be removed from the game. I'm not against it per se... but my particular DM style does not lend itself to death being a usual possibility. I just don't run enough "encounter after encounter after encounter" adventures wherein the PCs are usually that low on stuff that they don't have what it takes to get themselves back on their feet or at the very least revivified if they do lose that final death save.

Now granted... I am lucky in that my players all tend to be a skittish bunch regardless, so that I don't NEED to actually permanently remove a character for the players to get all worked up about the possibility. They treat a lot of the fights as actual life or death because they believe it is possible. Now if they were to actually do the math about the number of campaigns and the number of total fights across those campaigns, they'd come to the conclusion that actual death is not really likely (except in a few places where the story was such that they could die but the narrative kept them involved via undeath and such.) Thankfully they haven't caught on to it yet so these fights still seem like deadly affairs.

Truth be told... the annoying part for me isn't that my players don't think death can happen and thus take reckless actions knowing it'll work out... it's the few that believe that death is SO likely that their PCs refuse to actually take any risks at all and make their fellow party members do it for them all the time instead. You have an armored tank PC on the table, so the Ranger PC says "Oh good!" and spends all their time hiding and firing at range so that they don't get hurt-- even though they also have a really good AC and almost just as much hit points. But they still think they are a fragile flower and heaven forbid anyone sneaks through the brush to engage them. It's okay that the heavily-armored PC goers to 0 HP almost every fight because they're the only ones taking most of the hits, but you make one attack on the Ranger and suddenly they're all sullen and saying "Well, I'm dead." Sometimes I have to slap some sense into them by saying things like "Hey! Your tank is down and unconscious in the middle of the field and there are still 4 enemies around him. If you don't actually get down there and draw some attacks away from him, they're gonna kill this guy. Get a set of guts and get in there for once in your life, you whiny bastard!"

This kind of thing is where a lot of my disdain for the "winning and losing the board game" comes in... some players just put too much stock in "winning" by keeping their character alive at all costs that makes them do things that narratively don't make sense. They'll let their fellow party members get the crap kicked out of them without problem, so long as they don't get hurt. But as I tell them... if you and your best friend went out looking for a fight and your best friend started losing once you found one... are you REALLY going to run away and hide just because YOU might get hurt? If that's the case then why the hell did you go out looking for a fight in the first place?!?" Either play the narrative, or keep your PC home. Because it's not the other player's jobs to take all the risk while you get the rewards.

 

[Oofta]

I prefer less lethal campaigns, but what does it say that every single elf I've ever played dies. The record was a half elf that actually made it to 3rd! The last time I tried (I've tried multiple times) my brand new PC in a 5E campaign died during the last encounter, last monster. Then the DM decided to take a break and cancelled the campaign.

It seems to be escalating so I'm worried that if I try another elf they will die in the introduction scene to the campaign and the DM will then die on me so I haven't tried again.

 

[Oofta]

With the number of players I usually have at my table and the amount of healing and/or "stop death" spells... it is extremely rare for a character to permanently be removed from the game. I'm not against it per se... but my particular DM style does not lend itself to death being a usual possibility. I just don't run enough "encounter after encounter after encounter" adventures wherein the PCs are usually that low on stuff that they don't have what it takes to get themselves back on their feet or at the very least revivified if they do lose that final death save.

Now granted... I am lucky in that my players all tend to be a skittish bunch regardless, so that I don't NEED to actually permanently remove a character for the players to get all worked up about the possibility. They treat a lot of the fights as actual life or death because they believe it is possible. Now if they were to actually do the math about the number of campaigns and the number of total fights across those campaigns, they'd come to the conclusion that actual death is not really likely (except in a few places where the story was such that they could die but the narrative kept them involved via undeath and such.) Thankfully they haven't caught on to it yet so these fights still seem like deadly affairs.

Truth be told... the annoying part for me isn't that my players don't think death can happen and thus take reckless actions knowing it'll work out... it's the few that believe that death is SO likely that their PCs refuse to actually take any risks at all and make their fellow party members do it for them all the time instead. You have an armored tank PC on the table, so the Ranger PC says "Oh good!" and spends all their time hiding and firing at range so that they don't get hurt-- even though they also have a really good AC and almost just as much hit points. But they still think they are a fragile flower and heaven forbid anyone sneaks through the brush to engage them. It's okay that the heavily-armored PC goers to 0 HP almost every fight because they're the only ones taking most of the hits, but you make one attack one the Ranger and suddenly they're all sullen and saying "Well, I'm dead." Sometimes I have to slap some sense into them by saying things like "Hey! Your tank is down and unconscious in the middle of the field and there are still 4 enemies around him. If you don't actually get down there and draw some attacks away from him, they're gonna kill this guy. Get a set of guts and get in there for once in your life, you whiny bastard!"

This kind of thing is where a lot of my disdain for the "winning and losing the board game" comes in... some players just put too much stock in "winning" by keeping their character alive at all costs that makes them do things that narratively don't make sense. They'll let their fellow party members get the crap kicked out of them without problem, so long as they don't get hurt. But as I tell them... if you and your best friend went out looking for a fight and your best friend started losing once you found one... are you REALLY going to run away and hide just because YOU might get hurt? If that's the case then why the hell did you go out looking for a fight in the first place?!?" Either play the narrative, or keep your PC home. Because it's not the other player's jobs to take all the risk while you get the rewards.

One word: flanking. You're welcome.

 

[DEFCON 1]

One word: flanking. You're welcome.

Heh... if I put flanking on the table, my players would just be able to kill all the enemies even faster, LOL.

 

[Willie the Duck]

I was recently reading an older RPG and came to a part about "script immunity". Basically, the PCs aren't supposed to die unless it is necessary for the story being told. It got me thinking about something that has bothered me with D&D for a while now (particularly in 5E). I feel like the PCs aren't supposed to die, and I have heard how several groups now house-rule TPKs turn into captures, or the "it was all a dream" fake-out when PCs die, etc. Many DMs don't like bad luck killing off a PC unless they were doing something foolish (I've been in this position before as DM).

I know D&D is not about "winning" or "losing", but about the adventure, challenge, and story being told. However, lately I feel like a story that is already meant to be "successful" or "won" is not worth the telling. I have no interest in running a game where the players actually expect things to be ok. Where is the excitement if they believe the PCs will be ok--somehow...? Even if you have other goals where the PCs fail--it might not be heroic--but they are still there to try again.

I also understand most players don't want to invest a lot of time and energy into a PC who can die at any time. There are several reasons why it can be disruptive to the game, as well. But I have found IME that this leads to players taking chances which border on foolhardy, valiantly going forth instead of taking the time to plan, investigate, etc. a situation.

I once was part of a team developing a RPG called Mortality, because it was very lethal--combat should be avoided whenever possible. But D&D is so very combat-oriented at most tables a very lethal version wouldn't be well accepted IMO.

Anyway, these are just some thoughts and I was wondering in anyone else is experiencing similar things. Thanks for your time and any responses.

I am really confused why you think this. What about D&D suggests this to you? Particularly TSR-era D&D where rolling up a new character took all of a couple minutes. 5e is a little like this in that 1) it is default-set to easy mode*, 2) it has a somewhat complex build mechanics and making a new character could take a half-hour (or more if you have to look up stuff and compare), and 3) it has the slightest bit of character backstory and personality systems. Still, I would think this would be more true of games like GURPS, or Hero System or something like that, where building a character can take a long time and it has rules for things like personality traits, ties and connections, and so forth.
*which, honestly, has only the slightest bit of relevance to the situation. Easy mode just means you can bite off more before it is more than you can chew.

P.S. This is pretty much how I've always handled it in every edition. D&D is as lethal as you want.

Pretty much, and this is my confusion to the OP's question. Not only is death as lethal as you want it, consequences of death are as powerful as you want them. Obviously each version of the game has slightly different resurrection rules, and more or less prevalence of 'death with no possibility of resurrection' effects, monsters, and cursed magic items. Also -- if your generic oD&D* fighting man dies and there's another one in the next prison cell who can pick up their magic items and play 99% identically, well then has there really been a death of any real consequence.
*The more you move towards attributes mattering, and then later additional build mechanics, the less this is true.

If characters don't die, why have combat rules at all?

Because inability to die does not mean inability to not achieve one's goals? If death is off the table, this seems like the primary advancement metric, even.

 

[Manbearcat]

No script.

No immunity.

 

[mserabian]

My players (whom I've GMd for over 40 years) don't like dying. It's just no fun for them and it generally ruins their mood and definatly dampens their desire to play. So generally unless its a heroic sacrifice type of situation the PCs in my game don't die.

 

[Micah Sweet]

If characters don't die, why have combat rules at all?

So they can show off all their cool powers, of course!

 

[Vaalingrade]

That's why in my case, those five pages backstories go straight into the paper shredder.

Heck, I have started to tell my players to not write backstories at all until their characters are sufficiently formed in their heads and they are comfortable role playing them.

Memo to the Players #2: Portraying Characters

I’ve decided it’s not enough for me to teach you how to run less-worse games. Now, I’m doing your job too. I’m teaching your players how to play role-playing games. Not the …

theangrygm.com

No shade, but I just wouldn't play in that game. You just said not to play the part of the game I like.