D&D General If not death, then what?

[James Gasik]

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!

"Indeed, you have been blessed and cursed with immortality. However, no guarantees have been met regarding the quality of your eternal existence."

 

[Stormonu]

It definately is table-dependent.

As DM, I’m not one who enjoys seeing character death, but sometimes it’s a consequence. I try to minimize the time it occurs due to bad luck or the DM overestimating the party’s capabilities. But if a character dies, either the group needs to pool for a ressurection or the player needs to roll up a new PC. I’ve only had one taker on the resurrection front.

As a player, I find it easy enough for me to roll up a replacement if my PC gets killed. Though, in one of the current games I’m in the DM goes way out of their way to make sure PCs can’t get killed (usually a last-minute save by a DMNPC or the enemy suddenly stops fighting for some bizarre reason). I hate it as it’s overly obvious. Still, I’ve managed to be on my 3rd character in this game (which doesn’t bother me, I get to try out new things).

On the other hand, a few years back I was in a game where my elvin enchanter got taken out by a ghoul/ghast pack (a TPK, to boot, I lasted the longest). I quit that game, and did not come back to it, as I had felt the situation the group had been put into in the first place had been unwinnable from the start.

So what is the right answer for one table might not be right for others. In the end, read the people at the table. Some can handle the consequences, others will balk. Some may need to even find another table because the fit isn’t right.

 

[James Gasik]

It definately is table-dependent.

As DM, I’m not one who enjoys seeing character death, but sometimes it’s a consequence. I try to minimize the time it occurs due to bad luck or the DM overestimating the party’s capabilities. But if a character dies, either the group needs to pool for a ressurection or the player needs to roll up a new PC. I’ve only had one taker on the resurrection front.

As a player, I find it easy enough for me to roll up a replacement if my PC gets killed. Though, in one of the current games I’m in the DM goes way out of their way to make sure PCs can’t get killed (usually a last-minute save by a DMNPC or the enemy suddenly stops fighting for some bizarre reason). I hate it as it’s overly obvious. Still, I’ve managed to be on my 3rd character in this game (which doesn’t bother me, I get to try out new things).

On the other hand, a few years back I was in a game where my elvin enchanter got taken out by a ghoul/ghast pack (a TPK, to boot, I lasted the longest). I quit that game, and did not come back to it, as I had felt the situation the group had been put into in the first place had been unwinnable from the start.

So what is the right answer for one table might not be right for others. In the end, read the people at the table. Some can handle the consequences, others will balk. Some may need to even find another table because the fit isn’t right.

I suppose one thing I need to do at the next Session Zero (not that I understand why I bother with these, the players rarely take advantage of them, and all come up with characters and backstories without consulting anyone else anyways), is ask each player exactly how they feel about the following:

*Do you feel the risk of dying and death is too low, too high, or about right?
*How do you feel about your character dying? What circumstances would be appropriate?
*How do you feel about coming back from the dead?
*How do you feel about other sorts of penalties instead of dying? (sadly, lol, these are the same guys who suggested fatigue levels instead of death saves).

 

[DND_Reborn]

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.

Multiple PCs per player is one way to go, and works well. In many of my games in the past, players often played two PCs, but I know that isn't for everyone.

Here is another thought, but it depends a LOT on your table and such:

You (as DM) also play a character. If a player's character dies, THEY become DM and you become a player. When the time is appropriate to the story, the new DM brings in a new character or reclaims the fallen PC if that PC is raised or brought back somehow.

This way, no one is "just sitting around" or playing a character which isn't their own.

 

[Laurefindel]

The threat level of a combat does not always have to be the same. This is made explicit in my current game where 0 hp = the adversaries got what they wanted, and they don't necessarily all want to kill you. Same is true for players.

In a bar fight it may mean "you stay down". A back-alley mugging may mean you couldn't prevent them form taking your stuff. An owlbear protecting its territory may mean it forced you to back off or is otherwise no longer threatened by your presence. Goblins might want to jump on your head showing their superiority. Orcs may want to show you (and their peers) that they could kill you if they wanted. Pixies may just want to draw a mustache on you with a magic marker (a literal one!).

And sometimes, being defeated means you are dying...

 

[Umbran]

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.

So, metagaming is okay by you, then?

 

[tetrasodium]

1) If character reactions are based on what the players know... that's metagaming. You want that? Or should the characters (and the players, if the players are acting out their roles) base reactions off what the characters know?

1a) It isn't disingenuous. It is called acting. The entirety of D&D is an elaborate game of, "Let's pretend," so calling it disingenuous seems a bit weird to me.

2) A major part of immersion is what we might call "willing suspension of disbelief". It is relevant in RPGs, and in consumption of most fantastical fiction and media. As in, I am a physicist - if I can't hang up my knowledge of real-world physics in the closet and leave it there, I could not enjoy Star Trek, or Star Wars, or superhero movies, or most genre fiction.

3) Beware the inconsistent standard - in a game where death was common, approaching an encounter as if you know there's no real chance of failure is asking your GM to make that one beggar kobold into a 20th level fighter to smack you all down for unskilled play. I submit that acting as if there's a threat may be skilled play in both cases, just applying different skills.

Is it? A player knowing that a dangerous encounter is dangerous does not preclude them from acting any more than it becomes acting just because a trivial encounter is described in a way that seems dangerous

 

[Umbran]

Is it? A player knowing that a dangerous encounter is dangerous does not preclude them from acting any more than it becomes acting just because a trivial encounter is described in a way that seems dangerous

You lost me. You may be arguing against something I didn't say.

 

[Lanefan]

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.

And at the same time highly implausible.

Fine for a movie, but not what I really want from a character in a D&D setting. That said, D&D characters come equipped with these things called hit points, which tend to serve largely the same function to a certain - but limited - degree.

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.

This raises a valid point: in a less-violent type of game - e.g. one largely based around courtly intrigue where any actual fighting is done by NPC armies and mercenaries - then character death need not be much if any of a factor; as you're not out to kill your courtly foes, nor are they out to kill you.

But if you're out slaying monsters, it's only fair the monsters have a chance to kill in return.

In broader terms, the PCs can expect to get back what they give out.

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?

A rotating cast can and does still has a narrative, though: that of the party as a whole rather than of any one individual character. That's the difference: characters can come and go all the time but as long as the party continues, so does the narrative around it. Same as a sports franchise - nobody who plays for the New York Yankees today played for them in 1982, but it's still the same team and people who aren't me still cheer for it.

 

[James Gasik]

Multiple PCs per player is one way to go, and works well. In many of my games in the past, players often played two PCs, but I know that isn't for everyone.

Here is another thought, but it depends a LOT on your table and such:

You (as DM) also play a character. If a player's character dies, THEY become DM and you become a player. When the time is appropriate to the story, the new DM brings in a new character or reclaims the fallen PC if that PC is raised or brought back somehow.

This way, no one is "just sitting around" or playing a character which isn't their own.

Not that I can get most of these guys to DM, lol. They think it's too hard.