D&D General If not death, then what?

[tetrasodium]

Read your linked post, mkay that's a pretty complex problem, but it is still a problem on the player side, either in their misunderstanding what kind of game you are trying to run, or in their disregard for the way you are trying to run the game. Neither has an easy fix. If they are acting invincible, there should obviously be real consequences for their actions in the game, even death.

I'm sure you've heard this before, but aren't these things covered in session 0? When expectations on either side of the table aren't being met, then maybe you need to discuss it with your players.

Yea, it's a conversation I've had to have several times running 5e & it never goes well. I generally need to simply sigh & tolerate it until there is a "what in the holy bleep" situation like that one to use as a starting point. 5e has so many levels of risk insulation baked into the system for PCs that simply pointing it out as a problem players should improve on before extreme unquestionably catastrophic levels of failure results in the player not just saying whatever needs saying to dismiss the conversation itself that players view as the real problem that needs moving past so they can go back to things as they were.
Unfortunately the players most prone to those sorts of problems IME are also the ones least likely to care about anything beyond their character sheet

 

[Helldritch]

So that means you have "tacit approval" to edit those sheets? They left them at your house, after all.

Ok, why are you assuming such a stupid idea? Why would I do that? Do you not trust your DM? I fear that your bad experiences prevent you from seeing the good in people.

The reason that we have copies of the characters at my place (note the word copies) is that every player must be able to play at least on other character at the table, sometimes more. If a player misses a session, one player will take on the role of that character and its henchemen if any.

Why is death the only "true consequence"? This is a thing you keep saying, over and over. Death is not the only true consequence. Why do you keep saying it is?

Death is not the only true consequence. It is the ultimate one. There is a big difference.
Losing familly members? Been there done that.
Losing limb(s)? Been there done that.
Losing a kingdom? Been there done that.
Losing a loved one? Been there done that.
Losing all or some prized items? Been there done that.
Losing to a villain to later take revenge? Been there done that.
Losing (insert whatever you want) ? Been there done that too.
Having a god hate you? Been there done that.
Having a nemesis hunting you down? Been there done that.
Having... (insert anything you want) ? Been there done that too.
Failing.... (insert again anything you want)? Been there done that too.
But all these are not permanent consequences. The ultimate consequence is death. All the rest is just a lost that will drive the story forward or not.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Right but in that case, what does dying mean? If nothing is lost, then that doesn't seem much different than not being able to die at all.

EDIT: and if what is ultimately lost is gold, magic, your sense of personal accomplishment, your in character goals and ambition, or xp, isn't that just....a setback other than death?

First of all, I never said i don't care when my characters die, I said I don't get upset about it. Its part of the game, a known possibility.

Also, what's lost for me is the verisimilitude gained from actually dying when your character is in a position that will kill you. That matters a whole lot to me. As reference, see the majority of my posts from the last few years.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Ok, why are you assuming such a stupid idea? Why would I do that? Do you not trust your DM? I fear that your bad experiences prevent you from seeing the good in people.

Because it's what you're doing to me. You're assuming a bunch of stupid ideas about how I run things--like making all of my players' victories hollow and pointless. Do you not trust me to actually give my players real challenges? I fear your bad experiences prevent you from seeing the good in other approaches.

Death is not the only true consequence. It is the ultimate one. There is a big difference.

Again, I completely disagree. If that were the case, you could not have A Fate Worse Than Death.

But all these are not permanent consequences. The ultimate consequence is death. All the rest is just a lost that will drive the story forward or not.

Why can't there be other permanent consequences? You have said that death is the only permanent consequence. Prove it. Why can't other things also do that? "Death is the only thing that can do that" is a very strong claim. Back it up! Don't just declare it as though it were self-evident. It's not.

 

[Micah Sweet]

To you. Other players like getting attached to their characters. They like the experience of fully realizing an entirely separate personality and growing to know them over multiple years. That's why Critical Role is so popular. Because you get to be another person and truly feel something when they die, other than "oh well, that happens all the time. Now to make my 5th character this campaign".

Note: I am not saying that it's wrong for you to like the hyper-deadly, emotionally detached style of play, just like it isn't wrong for people to grow emotionally invested in their PC and their story. I'm just explaining why some people don't enjoy the style of play that you do.

Oh, I know other people prefer other styles. I don't speak for them; I speak for myself and my experience.

Also I confess it is EXHAUSTING to have to constantly preface all my statements so there's no doubt that my opinion is just that. Isnt it also exhausting to police the posts of others for the same thing? I tried it for a little while but could not keep it up.

 

[Helldritch]

I see what you're saying, but how much/ or how badly do you want to punish the players when it comes to death?

Running a regular game, my players want to get back to the game together with what little time we have to play, not be forced to roll new characters when the dice don't roll in their favor. The point is to have fun together.

I do not "punish" anyone. It is something everyone agreed upon. We all expect it to happen. What we want, is the epic story of heroes that died or lived through hardship and that overcame them. Or see how the heroes died and how the new group will try to surpass the achievements of the previous one. We have a blast playing that way because we have no less emotional involvement in the character than any table. But the spice is there. The adrenaline is really there with each toss of the dice.

And truly, most death happen before level 5 with fewer and fewer true death after that unless very rare circumstances. Last TPK before the one a few weeks ago was almost 5 years. Not bad for such a horrible DM that I am to put what my players want. A possibility to make epic stories!

 

[Helldritch]

I am assuming that, when a player in one of your D&D game suffers the death of their PC, they (the player) are allowed to keep playing at the table.

How long do they have to wait before they start playing again? Are they allowed to bring a new PC into the same adventuring party? (I am inferring from your posts that the adventuring party is a feature of your D&D games.) Is there a rule that the new PC must be mechanically weaker in some fashion? Or must have a more disadvantageous fictional position than the PC who died?

I'm asking these questions because I'm trying to work out what you see as the difference between a permanent cost and a minor inconvenience.

In essence, if a character dies, the player can either roll up a new one (about 5 minutes) if no henchmen are available. If a henchmen is available, then the player takes the role of that henchmen. Henchmen are usually a level or two lower than the players (we now use side kicks from the Essential Box Set that were reprinted in TCoE as these rules are quite ok). If the players agrees to it, the henchmen is promoted to full character status and no need to roll up a new character.

If a new character is rolled up. The new character is usually introduced as the survivor of previous group that died further up or down depending on circumstance. A teleportation error, anything goes to introduce a PC ASAP. Very often, some players have already rolled up backup characters. They just take one and here we go.

But this also means that the player now have a character that is one level lower than all the others. The sooner the death, the less it will impact high level play. And around level 9, almost no death are permanent unless very rare circumstances. Most games we play end around level 14-15. The last TPK occured a few weeks ago against Demogorgon. They were a bit above the usual at level 17 (16 for one player) but the TPK occured from a few bad decision and a little bad luck rolls. But the way the first group ended was glorious as they died but Demogorgon was down to a few HP. If the priest had not rolled two times in a row a "1". The game would have ended with total success. It is group number two that were fighting Orcus that finally put down Demogorgon. Even them barely survived.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

Oh, I know other people prefer other styles. I don't speak for them; I speak for myself and my experience.

Also I confess it is EXHAUSTING to have to constantly preface all my statements so there's no doubt that my opinion is just that. Isnt it also exhausting to police the posts of others for the same thing? I tried it for a little while but could not keep it up.

Then why are you in this thread? From what I've seen, there's one group of posters in this argument are the ones saying "the superior way to play D&D is permanent character death", and "this is how you should play D&D", and other ways saying/dog-whistling that the other side is badwrongfun, and the other group of people is just explaining that you don't need to have PC death in the campaign in order for the game to be meaningful. Because if you want people to accept that your style of play is valid, that's done already. People get that. What other people aren't getting is that it's also valid to play without permanent character death. If you get that, we have no beef. But if you don't and agree with the people that profess that it's "superior/better" to play with permanent character death, that's where I take issue.

 

[tetrasodium]

Then why are you in this thread? From what I've seen, there's one group of posters in this argument are the ones saying "the superior way to play D&D is permanent character death", and "this is how you should play D&D", and other ways saying/dog-whistling that the other side is badwrongfun, and the other group of people is just explaining that you don't need to have PC death in the campaign in order for the game to be meaningful. Because if you want people to accept that your style of play is valid, that's done already. People get that. What other people aren't getting is that it's also valid to play without permanent character death. If you get that, we have no beef. But if you don't and agree with the people that profess that it's "superior/better" to play with permanent character death, that's where I take issue.

I don't think anyone has said they forbid spells like revivify reincarnate raise dead resurrection & so on. The mere existence of those spells makes PC death a costly but not unrecoverable consequence of a PC getting killed. Those spells existing has even been pointed out a few times by people saying that it's no big deal if PCs die & that the won't hold back if PCs are about to die.

 

[Helldritch]

Because it's what you're doing to me. You're assuming a bunch of stupid ideas about how I run things--like making all of my players' victories hollow and pointless. Do you not trust me to actually give my players real challenges? I fear your bad experiences prevent you from seeing the good in other approaches.

Been there done that. I never assumed you were a bad DM. Never even implied it, but you seem to take way more personal. I am contesting the style not the person or the group you are playing with.

Again, I completely disagree. If that were the case, you could not have A Fate Worse Than Death.

In D&D there are no fate worse than death. Save some rare stuff that would simply remove the character from play. Which amount to the same thing as... losing the character.
In my campaigns this means:
Becoming undead. (remove said character from play permanently unless you have access to True Resurection Spells. A rarity among rarities). Exactly the same fate as perma death.
Becoming Evil. (Remove said character from play. I/We have a strict rule against any evil characters. None allowed. No exceptions.)
Suffering a fate that renders the character unplayable for some reasons. Like being thrown into the abyss without any means to come back or whatever. In effect, the character is dead as it will be replaced by another. (Haven't seen that one since 2nd edition with the Deck of Many thing).

Why can't there be other permanent consequences? You have said that death is the only permanent consequence. Prove it. Why can't other things also do that? "Death is the only thing that can do that" is a very strong claim. Back it up! Don't just declare it as though it were self-evident. It's not.

Lose a limb: Regeneration. If you have Eberron, replacement limbs.
Lose a kingdom: Take back the kingdom, if you really want it. You might get a who cares?
Losing a loved one: Happens all time. So what? Revenge? Been there done that.
Losing all prized items: Find new ones! Yeah! More adventures. Or find the thief and get them back.
And I could go on and on and on and on with every consequences. All but death are temporary. And at high level, even death might not be that permanent. This is why it is important that death be something, especially at low levels.

It enables the wall of remembrance. Let us remember those who fell before us so that we too shall not be forget. To the memories of unsung sacrifices and death! May we all be remembered!