D&D 5E [+] Questions for zero character death players and DMs…

[Vaalingrade]

Not dying seems to require a lot of really boring math and metagaming.

 

[James Gasik]

Generally I don’t, but I can make reasonable guesses. And if I have been hit by them before, I can make better guesses.

You don’t. But, you can probably see what weapons an orc is using and figure around how much damage a hit with it will do on average. If you’ve been fighting orcs for a while (which would make sense if you’re low on HP) you might even be able to estimate based on how much damage most of their attacks have been doing. The undead thing, no idea how much HP it has, but if it’s big you can guess it’ll probably take a lot of hits to kill.

It is hard to make guesses about how hard something can hit you before you’ve fought one, but if you’re low on HP there’s a decent chance you’ve fought one.

I don't know though, a cursory examination of enemies shows that the damage of their weapon in the hands of a PC may not be indicative of how it works for an NPC. Take the Gladiator's "Brute" trait, which adds an additional die of weapon damage to their attacks, emulating the weapon damage of Large foes.

 

[tetrasodium]

Knowing the probability does not make the event itself predictable. By definition, being random, it is not predictable. And if you're using a good source of randomness, like radioactive decay, atmospheric noise, or thermal noise, it is provably impossible to "foretell in advance" what will occur.

You might as well say that drawing a royal flush is a perfectly predictable event, simply because we can define exactly the chance of drawing one (1 in 649,740, to be precise, assuming you aren't picky about suit.) That's not "predictable" in any sense of the word as I would use it. Again, for actually good sources of randomness (most of which are quantum-mechanical in nature), it's literally the opposite of "predictable," in fact--it cannot be foretold in advance, not even in principle.

You don't need to predict it any more than I need to predict which days of my commute will result in delays due to watching a train pass or how many red to green lights I'll sit at . The important thing is to plan for it and ensure that such an event has room to occur.

Sure I could irresponsibly assume that I'll get every light green and see no trains but that would be very poor planning because the risk of being late to work is pretty significant due to always possible chance events. Monsters getting critical hits is likewise an always possible chance event that should be planned for. If you aren't planning for the possibility of a crit then you are betting on death saves and should plan to abuse them with one or more allies capable of rescuing you from bleeding out. If you aren't planning for that either there are a lot of reasons stacked up for why a death due to a crit is not simply random...


The fact that we now see how much of the group was not even on the map however shows a new gamble of assuming that the monsters won't be able to strike back if the party simply refuses to fight on the battle map. The map looks like a pretty big one unless those are houses for ants. As a gm who has seen it often I don't even feel bad if someone dies as a result of banking on me just having the monstersput their neck in a noose while players try to attack from hundreds of feet away on a battlefield thousands of feet across anymore and will wandering encounter chance each player off the map each round.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

You don't need to predict it any more than I need to predict which days of my commute will result in delays due to watching a train pass or how many red to green lights I'll sit at . The important thing is to plan for it and ensure that such an event has room to occur.

Sure I could irresponsibly assume that I'll get every light green and see no trains but that would be very poor planning because the risk of being late to work is pretty significant due to always possible chance events. Monsters getting critical hits is likewise an always possible chance event that should be planned for. If you aren't planning for the possibility of a crit then you are betting on death saves and should plan to abuse them with one or more allies capable of rescuing you from bleeding out. If you aren't planning for that either there are a lot of reasons stacked up for why a death due to a crit is not simply random...


The fact that we now see how much of the group was not even on the map however shows a new gamble of assuming that the monsters won't be able to strike back if the party simply refuses to fight on the battle map. The map looks like a pretty big one unless those are houses for ants. As a gm who has seen it often I don't even feel bad if someone dies as a result of banking on me just having the monstersput their neck in a noose while players try to attack from hundreds of feet away on a battlefield thousands of feet across anymore and will wandering encounter chance each player off the map each round.

And a crit happening on an attack you don't know exists...? What kind of planning is supposed to account for that?

That's like saying I have to account not just for traffic lights, but for every possibility of something going critically wrong on the whole sequence between departing the house and getting to work. "There could be a gas leak." "There could be a shooting." "There could be a five-car pileup."

No, sorry, I'm not buying this. Critical hits happen, yes. Critical hits that instantly kill you are not common enough to warrant preparation, especially when you don't actually know how much damage the creature can put out.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Yes, the game is about adventuring and adventuring inherently puts you into dangerous situations. But part of the challenge of the game is also recognizing when it’s time to return to the safety of town.

For you, sure. Not for everyone. Nor does that change the point.

It’s a game of push your luck, and yes, luck plays a role, but that role is secondary to your decision to keep pushing or to quit while you’re ahead.

Most things in the game have an element of randomness, but almost nothing in the game is entirely random.

Irrelevant. Remember the context of the discussion, and understand that I do not, and will never, care about semantics. You are insisting on word usages/definitions that make other people’s arguments inherently nonsensical, rather than actually engaging with those people’s arguments.

Umm… It’s called a critical hit? Happens on a natural 20, which is 5% of d20 rolls?

A critical hit is absolutely a predictable event, and an important one to take into consideration when deciding whether to press on or return to safety.

You gotta realize that not all crits are equal. There are critters that aren’t actually getting much from a crit, and there are creatures that can down a fairly fresh character with no reason to “return to town”, with a single crit.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Not dying seems to require a lot of really boring math and metagaming.

Eh, it’s a playstyle thing.

some folks play D&D with a strong element of “player skill” involved, and tend to assume that this is just how D&D is played.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I don't know though, a cursory examination of enemies shows that the damage of their weapon in the hands of a PC may not be indicative of how it works for an NPC. Take the Gladiator's "Brute" trait, which adds an additional die of weapon damage to their attacks, emulating the weapon damage of Large foes.

We've uncovered yet another issue with NPCs having abilities PCs of the same sort can't have!

 

[Umbran]

I’d say it’s pretty relevant, given that the claim I was arguing against was “character death is a punishment for playing wrong.”

So, we can probably short circuit this. Maybe, for you, death isn't a punishment. That's cool. But, you obviously cannot speak for everyone. So, how about we don't invalidate the experiences of others who have ether felt that it was, or who have been treated as if it was, by just flat claiming it isn't?

Whether it is, or isn't, is a local phenomenon, not a global one.

Sure, bad DMs are bad. Not every DM who leaves the possibility of unexpected character death on the table is a bad DM.

This at least feels like a bit of a strawman. I certainly didn't say that every DM who leaves the possibility of unexpected death on the table is a bad DM. While I haven't read every post in the thread, did anyone actually use the phrase "bad DM" except you?

This is a + thread talking about not allowing characters to die. Spending a lot of time defending allowing characters to die is rather like coming into a thread about sedans to argue that people who own SUVs are okay, too. Maybe it isn't necessary to argue this here?

 

[Umbran]

Not dying seems to require a lot of really boring math and metagaming.

There need be no extra math to not dying. Some may choose to use some, but it isn't a requirement.

You are playing a game with other human beings, right? So, one should be taking those other human beings into account. If you would prefer to discard that as "metagaming", you are putting a notable limit on how much those other human beings matter to you. If you have to tell another player, "My game is more important to me than your feelings are," maybe it is time to find another table, rather than decrying a practice overall.

Do note this is a "+" thread. If you aren't on board, maybe find another discussion, hm?

 

[Charlaquin]

For you, sure. Not for everyone. Nor does that change the point.

I have never said it was for everyone. My point has never been anything more than “Death has a place in some (but not all) character-story driven games” and “character death is not a punishment for players playing wrong.”