D&D General If not death, then what?

[Laurefindel]

Death doesn't have to be the end. Have the characters wake up in the afterlife. Then they have to find a way back to life through a different kind of adventuring.

I did this twice - I love that kind of game - but that's usually a trick you can pull once per campaign before it gets old and overused (unless that's one of the themes of the campaign). Also, depending on the campaign, it can be a major derail or a significant aparte where other players may not be involved.

 

[Lanefan]

Death doesn't have to be the end. Have the characters wake up in the afterlife. Then they have to find a way back to life through a different kind of adventuring.

Or - and I've both DMed and played this, in different campaigns - have a living party go into the afterlife and (try to) bring the dead character's soul out (thus reviving it).

 

[Umbran]

Sure, but the world still allows the possibility of death, and the person in question can't just say, "no thank you" when it happens. That's what I'm talking about. Death being outside player control is part of the world existing independent of the PCs.

As I said, your time, your game, your fun. Do like you want. I don't have any need to convince you otherwise.

 

[Vaalingrade]

Put another way, if I-as-player know my character can't die then I take it as a given that my character knows it can't die, and it's going to behave with that knowledge firmly in mind.

How does that follow?

You also know your character can't taste. Does that mean you never order ale and delicious food at the inn?

 

[Lanefan]

How does that follow?

You also know your character can't taste. Does that mean you never order ale and delicious food at the inn?

In fact, unless some random element tells me otherwise, I know my character is in theory a living breathing inhabitant of the setting and thus is possessed of the same sensory abilities as others of its species; which usually includes taste. Thus, my character can taste; and a pint of fine ale goes down well.

 

[James Gasik]

I think you mentioned this before. If a player did this in my game, they would not be invited back. It is insanely disrespectful IMO.


While this sometimes happens, more often than not what seems like dumb luck (a critical hit, for example) only led to death because the player insisted on playing their PC as though they were invincible.

For example, in my last session a week ago, a player has the chance to have his PC disengage and reform with the rest of the party, but he insisted on attacking even though he was already injured and below half HP. He hit, but the monster survived and critted him, for instant death.

So, while some people might say, "Oh, that isn't fair, it was just bad luck." My answer: "Maybe, but what happened before that?" Odds are, the PC put themselves at risk and should have been considering other options.

That being said, sometimes it is just "dumb luck", but IME more often than not there are underlying circumstances.


Yes, that is his job, but not to the point of suicide. If he is pressed, he has to be able to fall back and have others pick up the slack. Unless you have a small party, most groups have at least two front-liners IME, and they can trade off duty if the encounter permits.


It isn't mitigated in that sense, it is withstood. Those PCs also tend to have the most hit points purposefully for taking that damage.


My first suggestion would be a coma until they finish a long rest. You mentioned not doing time-sensitive missions, so that might work. If a long rest is too long, maybe just a short rest?

Another option is allowing them to spend HD to stay up, using their reaction maybe. But while at 0 hit points perhaps some penalty, like half speed, disadvantage on attacks, etc. How severe you want this is really up to your group and what they feel good with.

Yes I did mention that story before, when I was explaining why I consider a party member dying a fail-state for an otherwise good session. The loss of momentum as we all tried to get back on track was evident.

So far, the idea I've come up with is to force players to have multiple characters, that they switch off between adventures (but will all level up simultaneously, so there's no moment of "oh now we have to play the weaker characters"- players, in my experience, seem to love some kind of progression happening at a reasonable clip).

That way, if a character dies, we have another character they've been playing that can theoretically be slotted in to the party. Though whether or not they mesh with the new party or can assume the role of the fallen character is...unclear.

But making death feel like a personal punishment is still something I want to avoid.

 

[Vaalingrade]

In fact, unless some random element tells me otherwise, I know my character is in theory a living breathing inhabitant of the setting and thus is possessed of the same sensory abilities as others of its species; which usually includes taste. Thus, my character can taste; and a pint of fine ale goes down well.

Then how does your character know they can't die? Because as a living breathing inhabitant of the setting, they also have a sense of mortality even if the metagame isn't going to randomly gank them.

 

[Micah Sweet]

As I said, your time, your game, your fun. Do like you want. I don't have any need to convince you otherwise.

You said you thought my connection was tenuous. I was explaining it.

 

[Lanefan]

Then how does your character know they can't die? Because as a living breathing inhabitant of the setting, they also have a sense of mortality even if the metagame isn't going to randomly gank them.

Fair point. You're right that initially the character wouldn't know that.

As she and-or others in the party survive one implausibly (or impossibly) narrow escape after another, however, they might eventually start to wonder as to whether in fact they are immortal. Some good RP might come of that investigation; and if the answer's "yes" then lookout, setting!

 

[James Gasik]

So you go to watch an action movie with a relatively invincible character. You know John Wick isn't going to die, no matter how many gallons of blood he loses in the process. And yet, the movie is entertaining, despite knowing he has plot armor.

The reason is, you want to find what happens next. How does he survive? What was the cost of his survival? How will the stakes be increased? How can the stakes be increased.

Now, I get it. D&D is a game. And for some, the fun is the risk of losing. And death is a way to lose that makes sense when you're a monster slaying hero.

It's why the longevity of Elves isn't even a racial trait anymore. It's a ribbon at best. Because no one really expects death of natural causes to occur in D&D.

But if you also like your D&D game to have a narrative, to follow a group of individuals who aren't a constantly rotating cast (which is a legitimate way to play, even if some don't care for it), then what stakes are being played for?

I'm thinking, first of all, every character needs goals, ambitions that their actions bring them closer towards, and failure brings them farther away from.

As well, characters need NPC's that are important to them. Perhaps failure results in a loss of a valued ally or even a loved one.

The idea is to replace mechanical punishments, like, "damage leg, -5 ft. to speed" or "one freaking eye, disadvantage on ranged attacks" with narrative ones that the players care about as much as the loss of their character, maybe?