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

[Chaosmancer]

Since this is supposed to be a + thread, let's try and drag this back to discussing the merits of a deathless game. Because I do have a play expeirence that I think highlights the single most common reason that I as a player and as a DM, do not like character death.

Now, the funny thing about this is that this story doesn't involve a character death. This was the party where I was playing my Gnome Cleric, and the party repeatedly murdered an innocent woman in front of him, while mocking him for trying to save her because she was "clearly evil" since Strahd came to kill them whenever they attacked her. (Should I have left the group? Probably, but my friend was the DM and had invited me, and I was trying not to just abandon him)

So, my gnome cleric, who was a good doctorly type, revived the woman AGAIN, handed her over to Strahd to protect her, and left Barovia. (What? But Strahd is evil. Yeah, but he hadn't murdered her twice in the same hour for the crime of being scared and being Strahd bait)

Now then, still playing the game I had to make a new character, who was already in Barovia (which was a side-stop in the game) and who could actually stomach standing next to these people. So, I made a fiend pact warlock, whose goal was to become an archdevil and had gained his powers by consuming a weak fiend. I had all these plans for how he would secretly work to create a cult and a few other things.

And none of it mattered. First off, he was starting at level 15, so it was weird he didn't have a cult, but the DM couldn't justify a new character having that much power. Secondly, since he was a new character no one wanted to talk to him or RP with him, because he was new and they didn't have a relationship with him. The game was also about to end, so I only ended up having three or four sessions, completely disconnected from every story thread we'd spent two years building, where he basically just... existed.


Now, again, I know situation didn't arise due to character death, but when I think of character death, I think of this situation a lot. Because that feeling of being entirely disconnected from everything is what I think permanent character death often causes. Sure, it can happen early enough that the players can all "get over it" and reintegrate. Or it can happen late enough that everyone is like "well, that's the game" but I find this to be a major detriment to people's enjoyment. Because the fun of the game is being involved in the story, and when you have to bring in someone who wasn't involved, it becomes... awkward and weird.

And, I will note, many of the stories I've heard of older editions like show in KoTD seem like they... get really silly to try and fight this problem. "This is Knuckles the VIII, the half-brother of Knuckles the VII who knows everything that is going on, because he wrote letters to me and his will told me what needs to be done." Did he actually write any letters or a will or anything else? No, generally they didn't, generally they just used it as a justification to make a clone of their character and give them all their items. So, at that point... why not just skip the convolution and make it so Knuckles didn't die? The end result (the same character with the same gear) is still maintained, but now the story can be far simpler. Maybe even with a new mystery to solve as a consequence for their death.

 

[James Gasik]

Since this is supposed to be a + thread, let's try and drag this back to discussing the merits of a deathless game. Because I do have a play expeirence that I think highlights the single most common reason that I as a player and as a DM, do not like character death.

Now, the funny thing about this is that this story doesn't involve a character death. This was the party where I was playing my Gnome Cleric, and the party repeatedly murdered an innocent woman in front of him, while mocking him for trying to save her because she was "clearly evil" since Strahd came to kill them whenever they attacked her. (Should I have left the group? Probably, but my friend was the DM and had invited me, and I was trying not to just abandon him)

So, my gnome cleric, who was a good doctorly type, revived the woman AGAIN, handed her over to Strahd to protect her, and left Barovia. (What? But Strahd is evil. Yeah, but he hadn't murdered her twice in the same hour for the crime of being scared and being Strahd bait)

Now then, still playing the game I had to make a new character, who was already in Barovia (which was a side-stop in the game) and who could actually stomach standing next to these people. So, I made a fiend pact warlock, whose goal was to become an archdevil and had gained his powers by consuming a weak fiend. I had all these plans for how he would secretly work to create a cult and a few other things.

And none of it mattered. First off, he was starting at level 15, so it was weird he didn't have a cult, but the DM couldn't justify a new character having that much power. Secondly, since he was a new character no one wanted to talk to him or RP with him, because he was new and they didn't have a relationship with him. The game was also about to end, so I only ended up having three or four sessions, completely disconnected from every story thread we'd spent two years building, where he basically just... existed.


Now, again, I know situation didn't arise due to character death, but when I think of character death, I think of this situation a lot. Because that feeling of being entirely disconnected from everything is what I think permanent character death often causes. Sure, it can happen early enough that the players can all "get over it" and reintegrate. Or it can happen late enough that everyone is like "well, that's the game" but I find this to be a major detriment to people's enjoyment. Because the fun of the game is being involved in the story, and when you have to bring in someone who wasn't involved, it becomes... awkward and weird.

And, I will note, many of the stories I've heard of older editions like show in KoTD seem like they... get really silly to try and fight this problem. "This is Knuckles the VIII, the half-brother of Knuckles the VII who knows everything that is going on, because he wrote letters to me and his will told me what needs to be done." Did he actually write any letters or a will or anything else? No, generally they didn't, generally they just used it as a justification to make a clone of their character and give them all their items. So, at that point... why not just skip the convolution and make it so Knuckles didn't die? The end result (the same character with the same gear) is still maintained, but now the story can be far simpler. Maybe even with a new mystery to solve as a consequence for their death.

But if Knuckles never died, he wouldn't have become a God, which led to his player eventually making a Cleric devoted to his own old character!

I guess that shows that sometimes a character death can add to the story. Of course, I've never had one of those campaigns that lasted years and years with a constantly rotating cast of heroes either. I kind of wish I had, it sounds like a blast.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Let's go with that. I have never, in any system of D&D, seen instant death by crit happen anywhere close to reliably. It's outright rare past the first few levels, and uncommon even then with 1e-3e. With 4e and 5e instant crit death at low levels is rare, and at 5th level or higher I haven't seen it happen in 5e and never played 4e.

What does D&D do to reliably kill PCs now that 1e-2e are over?

I don’t recall making a claim that the above query is relevant to. Have you mixed me up with someone else, possibly?

What I have said, is that a game can punish and reward behaviors, in reply to multiple people challenging the notion that punishment could ever be relevant to D&D outside of malicious DMs.

I also stated, in reference to over a decade of public discussions, that 3.5 punishes low system mastery, esp in the form of non-optimized character builds, by reliably creating unsatisfying experiences for those players who haven’t mastered the system.

From there, the pedantic “corrections” tangents have prevented any further discussion along that line of thought.

Another poster claimed that the system hasn’t randomly killed they hypothetical character, but rather their choice to take certain risks did, which is somewhat relevant to the “punishment” discussion, but doesn’t seem to be what you’re looking for clarity on, here.

 

[Charlaquin]

And I said very early in our interaction to you that punishment does not require intent. There are several people using the term in this thread, only one of whom has claimed that DMs allow death in order to punish wrong play, and even he seems to have used that claim as a sarcastically hyperbolic rejoiner, as is his habit.

Yeah, well that one is what I’m arguing against, so unless you agree with him, I don’t see why you’re arguing with me.

 

[Charlaquin]

I asked this in the other thread. Do you bring an umbrella with you when the weather report says there is a 5% chance of rain?

Not generally, but I also don’t complain that I “randomly” got caught in the rain without an umbrella.

 

[Vaalingrade]

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?

I'm not sure how you got that from what I said. I've not once talked about my game being more important than someone's feeling. I'm in fact consistently on the other side of the argument right there with what you've been saying.

Upthread someone was talking about how the player should be taking into account the chances of getting crit and the average damage of the monster and exactly what the monster is capable of and not doing that is the core factor in them not dying, and that seems a huge onus to put on someone who just want to keep playing the game with the character they made for it.

 

[Maxperson]

I don’t recall making a claim that the above query is relevant to. Have you mixed me up with someone else, possibly?

I thought it was you that mentioned as an example, being crit killed in 4e and dying instantly. It may have been someone else, though. If so, I apologize for the mix-up.

What I have said, is that a game can punish and reward behaviors, in reply to multiple people challenging the notion that punishment could ever be relevant to D&D outside of malicious DMs.

I disagree with the notion that the system punishes. It does encourage certain things and actively rewards some of them, like killing monsters by attaching the vast majority of the XP and treasure gained to that activity. Those are intentional rewards granted for taking the risk of PC death and fighting them.

The death of a PC in a fight, even one that is a random encounter, isn't a punishment. That death is not meant to discourage anything. the game also discourages the playing of evil alignments by setting up most of the enemies as evil, with very few of the examples of game play and DMing as non-heroic or evil centric.

I don't see any punishments, though.

I also stated, in reference to over a decade of public discussions, that 3.5 punishes low system mastery, esp in the form of non-optimized character builds, by reliably creating unsatisfying experiences for those players who haven’t mastered the system.

I disagree with you on that as well. It encourages system mastery for certain. The "trap" choices still work plenty well for the baseline of the game, though. Those choices only ended up being true traps if the DM required system mastery as the baseline, rather than system mastery rewarding players by making the game challenges easier to overcome.

It was a DM created problem, usually because the DM entered into an arms race against the players who showed mastery. The players did better with character creation and the DM ramped up the challenges, then the players got better, and the DM ramped them up some more. At that point anyone without mastery was screwed.

Another poster claimed that the system hasn’t randomly killed they hypothetical character, but rather their choice to take certain risks did, which is somewhat relevant to the “punishment” discussion, but doesn’t seem to be what you’re looking for clarity on, here.

That poster is both right and wrong. The choices probably contributed, but so did random bad luck. I say probably contributed, because I have been in situations where wraiths or insert other creature able to go through walls here came out of nowhere, cut off my PC and killed me. No chance to run. No chance to detect ahead of time. I guess my choice to go into an empty room could be called, if you stretch it really hard, a contributor to the death, but I don't think so.

 

[Charlaquin]

I'm not sure how you got that from what I said. I've not once talked about my game being more important than someone's feeling. I'm in fact consistently on the other side of the argument right there with what you've been saying.

Upthread someone was talking about how the player should be taking into account the chances of getting crit and the average damage of the monster and exactly what the monster is capable of and not doing that is the core factor in them not dying, and that seems a huge onus to put on someone who just want to keep playing the game with the character they made for it.

o/

So, I think I’ve made a realization about where our disconnect lies. One way to define a game is that you have a goal, and you impose restrictions on yourself to make the pursuit of that goal more interesting. In a simple example like Candyland, your goal is to move your piece the end of the board, but you’re restricted in how you’re allowed to move your piece - you have to draw a card and move to the nearest square of that color. Nothing really stops you from just ignoring the cards and moving your piece to the end, except that if you did so, you wouldn’t really be playing a game. Getting the piece to the end of the board has no intrinsic value, the value comes from trying to overcome the restrictions that you voluntarily agree to, that’s what makes it a game.

So, to me and many others, part of the goal when playing D&D is keeping the character alive (perhaps in pursuit of some larger goal like achieving maximum level, or completing a satisfying narrative arc for the character or something). All the things in the game that can kill the character are part of the restrictions that we voluntarily agree to, to make the character’s survival meaningful. To us, making character death strictly voluntarily feels like just ignoring the cards and moving the piece to the end of the board. By removing the restrictions, it robs the achievement of its value. The struggle was, for us, the point, or at least a significant part of it.

I suspect that you and many others are playing for a different goal, and the risk of character death isn’t what restricts your pursuit of that goal, so it isn’t really adding any value to your game. It may, in fact, be detracting from your game, because while not directly restricting the pursuit of your goal, it’s still inconvenient (characters take a big investment of time and creative energy after all). So what to me is one of the main sources of value in the game, to you feels like a punishment for playing the wrong way, because we’re functionally playing entirely different games with the same (or very similar) rules.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

I thought it was you that mentioned as an example, being crit killed in 4e and dying instantly. It may have been someone else, though. If so, I apologize for the mix-up.

That was me. The mixup is in the purpose of the example, I guess. I used it as an example of death sometimes being quite random and as a result unsatisfying.

 

[Chaosmancer]

o/

So, I think I’ve made a realization about where our disconnect lies. One way to define a game is that you have a goal, and you impose restrictions on yourself to make the pursuit of that goal more interesting. In a simple example like Candyland, your goal is to move your piece the end of the board, but you’re restricted in how you’re allowed to move your piece - you have to draw a card and move to the nearest square of that color. Nothing really stops you from just ignoring the cards and moving your piece to the end, except that if you did so, you wouldn’t really be playing a game. Getting the piece to the end of the board has no intrinsic value, the value comes from trying to overcome the restrictions that you voluntarily agree to, that’s what makes it a game.

So, to me and many others, part of the goal when playing D&D is keeping the character alive (perhaps in pursuit of some larger goal like achieving maximum level, or completing a satisfying narrative arc for the character or something). All the things in the game that can kill the character are part of the restrictions that we voluntarily agree to, to make the character’s survival meaningful. To us, making character death strictly voluntarily feels like just ignoring the cards and moving the piece to the end of the board. By removing the restrictions, it robs the achievement of its value. The struggle was, for us, the point, or at least a significant part of it.

I suspect that you and many others are playing for a different goal, and the risk of character death isn’t what restricts your pursuit of that goal, so it isn’t really adding any value to your game. It may, in fact, be detracting from your game, because while not directly restricting the pursuit of your goal, it’s still inconvenient (characters take a big investment of time and creative energy after all). So what to me is one of the main sources of value in the game, to you feels like a punishment for playing the wrong way, because we’re functionally playing entirely different games with the same (or very similar) rules.

I could see that. I really don't see character death has a "restriction". To take the Candyland example, if you take a single piece and play Candyland solo, you will always reach the end of the board. If the entire group of people playing agree to keep playing til everyone reaches the end, everyone will reach the end.

Death to me would be like if there was a card in Candyland that said "remove your piece from the board, wait 20 minutes, then start playing again, turn order may be adjusted." It doesn't change that inevitable end goal of reaching the last space, it just disrupts the game entirely.

The restrictions on the game that me and my players find are the limited toolbox of skills and abilities, and the creativity in overcoming the challenges that the DM has put before us. Plus the variety of self-imposed restrictions from RP.