D&D General If not death, then what?

[Helldritch]

But sometimes this approach has problems too.

I'm remembering one of my first campaigns. My character died in the session before we were supposed to fight my own nemesis. And it was impossible for me to come back before that fight. So, I skipped that sesssion and everyone else got to enjoy fighting the nemesis I had come up with that was defining to my characters backstory.

Sure, I could have played random guard #3, but wouldn't that have been even more insulting? "Here's your nemesis, but now you fight them as someone with zero connection to the story you've been building" And that was fundamentally disappointing because the party (who was the reason for my death) got to defeat and kill my nemesis, and that was the first and last time they appeared in the entire campaign.

I know a lot of people swear by having no plan, no plot, just what happens at the table, but while that can lead to great moments, it can lead to terrible disappointments as well.

Your story is the reason backstory are not for.my table. It would not have been Your nemesis. It would have been the nemesis of the group. The whole group would have reasons to be there. Missing out on that fight would still be a sad thing, but at least, the main protagonists would still be there.

Your group finished your story for you. That sucks big. But creating full back story instead of having the story evolve from play often bring this kind of events into play.

 

[Vaalingrade]

Your story is the reason backstory are not for.my table. It would not have been Your nemesis. It would have been the nemesis of the group. The whole group would have reasons to be there. Missing out on that fight would still be a sad thing, but at least, the main protagonists would still be there.

Your group finished your story for you. That sucks big. But creating full back story instead of having the story evolve from play often bring this kind of events into play.

Welp, there goes a full quarter of my reason for playing AND running.

 

[JiffyPopTart]

Cool. Thanks for the info!


1A. Was there a fourth, or just the three of you?

1B. Could the mage (wizard??) counterspell, or attempt to?


2A. Splitting up is rarely a good tactic IMO, but that does depend a lot on the size of the party. Not knowing if there was more than three PCs, splitting up with just 3-4 PCs is very risky IME! While not being "grouped" might seem like a good idea, it also means you can't support each other as easily. The fact the other PCs didn't know you were down and dying is evidence of that happening.

2B. How was the spell the just caught you in the area placed? If the other two PCs were the targets and not you, it likely should of been centered between the two of them. If that happened to catch you, it happens. But, if the DM placed it so that it just caught you, but was not optimally placed for the other two, to me that reeks of abuse by the DM! Unless the BBEG knew where you were, which then of course it makes sense.

2C. Not knowing the spell or save, you were hiding behind a building. Did you gain any bonus to your save for cover?


I'm not as familiar with that subclass since it's in Tasha's. I see quickly from it that it should have had 55 hit points, so I guess it was already damaged?

Frankly, the summoned spirit seems a poor substitution for wild shaping yourself.

Also, a 10th-level Druid would have about 53 + 10 x CON mod hp. So, I guess you also were already injured badly? IME most PCs have CON 14, which would be 73 hp. So, even taking 52 points of damage normally wouldn't take you out.


Well, again, there is a lot I don't know of what is going on. One PC was a barbarian (I guess 10th-level?), probably raging, so 26 damage really should have been a major issue unless it was well into the fight and he was severely injured. Otherwise, why would he be trying to save himself from dying? If he was that injured, healing him might have been a better priority than concentrating on heat metal?

Again, on the surface, this sounds more like a side-effect of splitting up the party, which in this case seems to have been a tactical mistake.


Well, trying to avoid detection for what purpose? Was the party in such a sad state that you needed to hide during a BBEG battle?

As I said, being too passive can also lead to PC death, just like being too aggressive. The fact you were trading one for the other is immaterial since I wasn't there to see the event unfold.


So, during the rounds you were hiding you never called out, told others to watch out, or communicated in any way with the other PCs??? I mean, I agree players shouldn't share/declare information, but characters should be communicating with each other constantly.


After the uber-spell, neither of the other PCs, both blinded, felt the need to call out to make sure the others were still up? I mean, they can't see the others at that point, so finding out about the state of your allies seems like something they should have done. If they had, and you didn't answer, maybe they would have acted in time to save your PC?

Sorry, but this seems like you're saying the other PCs basically did nothing because they were blinded? I really hope that wasn't the case...


Being blind doesn't incapacitate you, but anyway I doubt there is any point in continuing this.

I stand by what I said. 90% or more of the time PC death isn't just "dumb luck" but usually due to a mistake or bad tactics or poor choices. Even if it is just bad luck, that is part of life and part of the game IMO.

Man, I hate multiquote sooo much. I can barely do a single quote because I'm using ENworld via a phone and Chrome browser.

1. The 4th character was not on the side of the map we were. They were a ranger attacking from a different board edge. The hiding/splitting up goal was to confuse the defenders at exactly what and how many things were attacking.

2. The wizard did not counterspell that spell as they had ducked behind a building for cover from the BBEG.

3. I forget the name of the spell. It's an 8th level wizard blast that has a 60' radius 12d6 damage and blind on a failed save. Sunburst or something? If you imagine a sort of city grid of small buildings I was behind a building in the NW quadrant, the wizard behind a building two streets to the south (he could see me from his ducked behind position), and the barbarian one more street south from the wizard but a bit forward so he could not see either of us. With the huge radius the spell was cast in the air and blasted that whole area from above.

4. Barbarian wasn't raging yet as he was shooting and moving with a bow waiting for the zombie to drop before rushing in. The overall gameplan was Heat Metal giant zombie too stupid to remove armor until it's dead while sniping and hiding from range, then when zombie drops charge in with party to finish off BBEG and two medium sized guards.

5. I'm not trying to optimize to win. I made a fun character that was a kobold named Yip-Yip who could summon a friend who happened to be a fire elemental named Yip who looked like a fiery version of Yip-Yip. This is a B-Team character and I'm not all that I terested in trying to keep track of all the multiple forms of shape change. I chose this subclass because it's easier to run a 2nd character than keep changing my stats all the time. Plus a kobold pyro is enjoyably chaotic.

6. Yip was flying above a building shooting his mini fireballs at the zombie while I was remaining hidden. My character was never known to the bad guys remaining hidden and silent the entire battle. This would allow us to add more "backup" arriving when I emerged to make out unknown numbers seem even larger. When I was KOed by the blast Yip was unsummoned/destroyed.

7. I'm a kobold. I did not have a high CON score to bulk up my HP. I did have a DEX of 20 which was of no use in this situation.

8. As mentioned before, we were sticking and moving. Calling out would let the bad guys know your exact location which would have brought the zombie giant swarming in on you while you were standing there blind and low on HP. The zombie, like a lot of giants, was fairly innocuous unless you actually were foolish enough to fight it toe to toe. It had no ranged attacks but hit for 30ish damage with it's giant sized great sword.

9. Had the characters known I was dying the only one that would have been able to get to me and pop a potion before I died would have been the barbarian. The wizard was blinded for 3 rounds and hiding from further damage as he downed some potions. The ranger was on the other side of the map and trying to interrupt the BBEG from casting another devastating spell, the barbarian wasted one turn blinded still but made his save at the end. The round after he decided his best option was to rage and charge the zombie hoping that his HP remainder would be enough to finish it off. Had he instead come over to heal me the following round would have seen me with 10HP and a non raging barbarian versus the zombie giant. I probably would have died from massive damage at that point but I supposed I could have run and hid again to heal up some. I think that would have just left the barbarian out to dry.

I think that's all the points...

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

If the DM is playing fairly and neutrally, the PCs die when the rules say they do.

In my experience, the PCs die whenever the DM says they do. The "rules" never say anything. Sure, there are rules for rolling death saves and the limits of resurrection magic and stuff like that, but you never get to that stage unless the DM says you do.

The DM cannot be "neutral", because they choose the monsters that the PCs fight. They choose the traps the PCs encounter. They choose if the PCs get to rest or not. Everything at the table happens because the DM says it does. Sure, dice rolls can alter things a bit, but in my experience playing, a PC dying from bad luck is much rarer than a PC dying because the DM had them fight a super powerful monster at low level, or they placed a trap in a hallway that killed them, or they didn't get to rest before going into a dangerous battle.

The DM cannot be "fair", because "fair" is a subjective term. A DM cannot be "neutral" because they choose the battles the PCs fight. As a DM, I know that if a PC dies, it is my fault. And sometimes I'm okay with that because it makes sense for the character or gets across the theme I want for the adventure. And sometimes I'm not okay with that because I know it would ruin the fun of the player and possibly spoil the entire rest of the campaign.

The PCs die when the DM says they do. Which is fine. I'm completely okay with the fact that you and other DMs like to play more deadly campaigns. However, since I know it doesn't fit my table, I typically reserve character death for important moments to make the campaign more impactful in the way I want it to be.

 

[DND_Reborn]

Man, I hate multiquote sooo much. I can barely do a single quote because I'm using ENworld via a phone and Chrome browser.

LOL sorry. I'll number the points like you did in the future to make it easier for you. I'll address your post when I get home from work.

 

[Helldritch]

In my experience, the PCs die whenever the DM says they do. The "rules" never say anything. Sure, there are rules for rolling death saves and the limits of resurrection magic and stuff like that, but you never get to that stage unless the DM says you do.

The rules actually say that if you get to zero hp, failed 3 death save you die. Period. Players can and do indeed get to that stage pretty easily.

The DM cannot be "neutral", because they choose the monsters that the PCs fight. They choose the traps the PCs encounter. They choose if the PCs get to rest or not. Everything at the table happens because the DM says it does. Sure, dice rolls can alter things a bit, but in my experience playing, a PC dying from bad luck is much rarer than a PC dying because the DM had them fight a super powerful monster at low level, or they placed a trap in a hallway that killed them, or they didn't get to rest before going into a dangerous battle.

Yes a DM chooses the challenges, the players choose if they will engage, parley of flee. Not every encounters should be "balanced" so that the players always win. When there are no risks, there is no glory.

No, the DM does not choose when the PCs decide to rests. But they may or may not have consequences. Random rolls are random rolls and resting is solely on the shoulders of the PCs.

The DM cannot be "fair", because "fair" is a subjective term. A DM cannot be "neutral" because they choose the battles the PCs fight. As a DM, I know that if a PC dies, it is my fault. And sometimes I'm okay with that because it makes sense for the character or gets across the theme I want for the adventure. And sometimes I'm not okay with that because I know it would ruin the fun of the player and possibly spoil the entire rest of the campaign.

I never kill PC. PCs kill themselves. By being reckless, planning poorly, making mistakes or simple bad assumption and even through bad luck. Sometimes, the big bad evil chump wins. That is life. It might suck, but without that risk, the game gets boring. The story emerges from the choices of the players and not from mine. I do not choose to kill a PC. Fate is sometimes fickle. Fairness for a DM is applying the rules equally to the PC and their foes. It is not fudging and favouring PCs all the time.

The PCs die when the DM says they do. Which is fine. I'm completely okay with the fact that you and other DMs like to play more deadly campaigns. However, since I know it doesn't fit my table, I typically reserve character death for important moments to make the campaign more impactful in the way I want it to be.

Again, nope, the DM does not say they die. The dice do. Roll on the open. Do not hide and you will see. It is not to a DM to choose when a death is "impactful" or "important". As harsh as it may seems, sometimes life's a b**ch. A meaningless death can be tragic too. But guess what? This is usually the sign to make another story with an other character. Avenge me my brother/sister/cousin or whatever!

 

[NotAYakk]

However, the ride is still thrilling, even if the risk is so low as to be effectively non-existent.

Which goes to show that the mind can be brought to think about a situation as risky, made to have the thrill, even when we intellectually know there is no real risk!

4e mechanics where half-decent at this.

Most fights started with the foes seeming to be on the brink of overrunning the PCs. Then the PCs would wittle down the foes and the PCs encounter powers and encounter-long powers would turn the tide.

It was amusingly predictable. But it was neat how the feeling of being overwealmed could be simulated pretty well.

 

[Micah Sweet]

In my experience, the PCs die whenever the DM says they do. The "rules" never say anything. Sure, there are rules for rolling death saves and the limits of resurrection magic and stuff like that, but you never get to that stage unless the DM says you do.

The DM cannot be "neutral", because they choose the monsters that the PCs fight. They choose the traps the PCs encounter. They choose if the PCs get to rest or not. Everything at the table happens because the DM says it does. Sure, dice rolls can alter things a bit, but in my experience playing, a PC dying from bad luck is much rarer than a PC dying because the DM had them fight a super powerful monster at low level, or they placed a trap in a hallway that killed them, or they didn't get to rest before going into a dangerous battle.

The DM cannot be "fair", because "fair" is a subjective term. A DM cannot be "neutral" because they choose the battles the PCs fight. As a DM, I know that if a PC dies, it is my fault. And sometimes I'm okay with that because it makes sense for the character or gets across the theme I want for the adventure. And sometimes I'm not okay with that because I know it would ruin the fun of the player and possibly spoil the entire rest of the campaign.

The PCs die when the DM says they do. Which is fine. I'm completely okay with the fact that you and other DMs like to play more deadly campaigns. However, since I know it doesn't fit my table, I typically reserve character death for important moments to make the campaign more impactful in the way I want it to be.

So, just a complete rejection of the premise? Glad you dropped by.

 

[Vaalingrade]

4e mechanics where half-decent at this.

Most fights started with the foes seeming to be on the brink of overrunning the PCs. Then the PCs would wittle down the foes and the PCs encounter powers and encounter-long powers would turn the tide.

It was amusingly predictable. But it was neat how the feeling of being overwealmed could be simulated pretty well.

Minions do wonders for the feeling of momentum shift. They hit hard enough to be credible as a threat and can be deployed in large numbers.

Then someone clears a chunk of them, break their formation and suddenly you're dominating, and it feels so good.

It just doesn't work as well while few monsters that each have to be hacked down little by little.

 

[Chaosmancer]

It really does come down to the type of game you want to run, I guess. Some people like all storytelling to occur organically, and that's fine. But I like creating a story, finding ways to invest the players into the game world by making it their story.

And having death be always on the table does sort run counter to this impulse. But like I said before, I think what I'm missing is that the player characters don't have built in stakes often. If they have nothing to lose, then death is the only thing that makes them strive to overcome adversity, basically.

If I can persuade the players to give me things their characters don't want to lose, then maybe having things other than death as a fail state become possible. But I know it's hard to give the DM things like family members to work with- you'll be happily adventuring, and then one day, oh no, your sister has been kidnapped!

Let's just say I've seen a lot of PC's who are orphans...

One thing that may help with that? Let the players set limits.

I did this with a Sci-Fi game a friend ran. I wanted to play the reluctant hero, a simple engineer trying to get home to his wife, whom he had wed before the company sent him on a multi-year mining tour. I told the GM flat out, I was not interested in any stories that involved his loving wife leaving him for another man because he'd been gone, or anything of the sort. That wasn't the story I was interested in. She ended up terrorized by a gang because his entire homeworld had turned into a mafia world for some reason, but the GM respected my call on who this character was.

A lot of players avoid connections because they not only know the DM will use them as "knives" as one of my former DMs put it, but because they don't trust the nature of the knife. But if you give some of the control back to them, and respect that control, then they may be more receptive. Something like "Hey, I want to tie you guys into the world more deeply and create some potentially interesting drama. Can you guys give me three 'knives' I can use against your characters? I'll let you tell me what is off-limits."

And sure, you may have that player who is like "Here is my sister, I don't anything bad to happen to her ever." But you can still work in some plot points with that. Like, she finds a genie spirit and gets three wishes, and that starts some chaos. Nothing bad is happening to her, but she becomes a focus of a story. But, in my experience, most people are okay with "This is the person I want to save later as a big hero moment" so they are fine with them being put into danger, but they wouldn't be fine with their childhood friend secretly being a devil worshipper and having to fight them, because you thought it was more dramatic than her being kidnapped.