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

[Charlaquin]

That's the kind of thing we don't need in this thread.

But accusing that DMs who leave character death a possibility only do so to punish players for playing wrong, we needed that?

 

[Maxperson]

But accusing that DMs who leave character death a possibility only do so to punish players for playing wrong, we needed that?

I don't even know what @Vaalingrade was trying to say to me with that post.

 

[Vaalingrade]

But accusing that DMs who leave character death a possibility only do so to punish players for playing wrong, we needed that?

No, because that's not what I said?

 

[Charlaquin]

No, because that's not what I said?

Oh, really?

I feel like this just reinforces that character deaths don't actually serve a story purpose and are just punishments for the player 'not doing it right'.

Sure looks that way to me.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

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.

Oh, I would never say that death cannot add to the story at all, it surely can add a lot. A cleverly-used death situation can lead to all sorts of interesting events. Even your facetious one! That could be super interesting. That said, having run a game for four years now which has had a few characters rotate in or out (due mostly to people needing to take breaks or going AWOL), it can be...awkward to have to deal with too much rotating. It can lead to excessive emphasis placed on whatever character has been around the longest, or threads that are left relevant and yet never resolved. I cannot say that it would never work, but it would certainly require an approach that is less "a band of Heroes who learn the Deep Secrets of their pasts" and much more "pretty much just ordinary people who happen to encounter extraordinary events without getting too tangled up in those events."

I'm a big fan of Big Damn Heroes and Rule of Cool, though, so I find it hard to stick to stories that are about consistently ordinary characters that never rise beyond the mundane.

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.

Yeah, this is another facet of the "Oh no! Anyway..." response I've mentioned. Death happens, and then it's brushed off. Whatever needs to happen in order to get the next PC into place immediately is done. Hirelings randomly become more powerful and step into the role flawlessly. Camaraderie that already existed is somehow transferred to the new character with no justification. Etc.

 

[Hussar]

It really seems to be a generational and edition thing. I think a large part of it comes down to when you started. I started in ’84 with B/X and AD&D. For me and my first D&D group, it’s character death or nothing.

See, I don't see this. I'm like you. I started about exactly the same time and went through the same progression. It's simply a taste difference. After all, Dragonlance had a No-Death clause in the modules. It wasn't secret - it was right there in the modules that you cannot kill the named PC's and a number of the NPC's before a certain point in the modules.

DL1 came out in 1984, so, I mean, that's not generational for us. That's right there from when we started.

 

[James Gasik]

See, I don't see this. I'm like you. I started about exactly the same time and went through the same progression. It's simply a taste difference. After all, Dragonlance had a No-Death clause in the modules. It wasn't secret - it was right there in the modules that you cannot kill the named PC's and a number of the NPC's before a certain point in the modules.

DL1 came out in 1984, so, I mean, that's not generational for us. That's right there from when we started.

Until the adventure killed my boy Sturm! I should have read the books before playing the adventure, I guess.

 

[Chaosmancer]

It really seems to be a generational and edition thing. I think a large part of it comes down to when you started. I started in ’84 with B/X and AD&D. For me and my first D&D group, it’s character death or nothing. To the point where we’re so tired of 5E being easy mode we’re switching to DCC and starting with a funnel to make up for lost time.

I haven’t heard the referee that giddy talking about a game in a long, long time. He’s very excited that PCs are back on the menu and doesn’t have to worry about balanced encounters, CR, building encounters, etc. Whatever we face, we face. We can fight or run. But there’s no foregone conclusion about the PCs just winning all the time. If we play stupid, our characters die. If we want our characters to live longer, we play smarter. Simple as.

As we’ve aged and had kids and brought them into the hobby with later editions (mostly 4E and 5E), the younger ones in the group are less excited about DCC. They’re not used to old-school grindhouse D&D. They seem to be literally incapable of understanding how character death could be in any way fun. Which is weird because most of them are also into horror.

We’re trying to tell them what to expect and how things are different than they’re used to. In typical kid fashion, they’re not listening.

This... boggles me. Why is the "referee" so excited that they can kill characters again? If they wanted to do that in 5e, it isn't hard.

And, again, I fully reject this idea that 5e is "easy mode". It just.. it leaves a foul taste in my mouth. It makes it seem like all the time I spent playing doesn't matter, because I wasn't playing a "real game". I know you didn't say that, but that's the feeling I always get when someone starts calling 5e "easy mode" because supposedly it is so hard to kill characters.

Killing characters isn't the point. It isn't the goal. To me, as the DM, it is the opposite of the goal. Because when PCs die too often and too close together, people stop caring about the game. It isn't a matter of "playing stupid" or "playing smart" I can make a death trap that is highly likely to kill you no matter how you play, and I can make three of them that will certainly kill someone by the time everyone is through it.

But I don't want to do that, it is utterly boring to me. I don't want to play a game where the main goal is this adversarial relationship where we see who is smarter than who.

 

[Chaosmancer]

I agree with you that death is not a restriction. It causes a change in characters, but that's about it. However, the removal of death and a change to make D&D like Candyland where everyone is eventually going to get to the end no matter what, is pointless to me. If we're all going to reach the end no matter what, let's just agree that we got all there and go play something fun(that way is not fun to me). There's no enjoyment for me in getting to the end if there was no real risk of PC death.

I do understand that there are RP restrictions, as well as other ways to lose a challenge or fail a goal. We have those in my game and in games that I play with other DMs. I just want death to be part of it. I have personal goals for each PC I create and the only way I can fail many of them is for that PC to die. So long as death is on the table, achieving those goals means something. Remove death and they no longer do.

That my take on it. Please don't take this post as an attack on you or saying you aren't doing it right. Death or no death is purely a personal choice or group choice and there's no right or wrong answer.

95% of all media involves the protagonist reaching their goal in the end. They are always going to reach their goal. Adrian Monk from the show Monk is going to catch the killer. Deku from My Hero Academia is going to defeat the villains. The Fellowship of the Ring is going to destroy the Ring of Power.

The vast, vast, vast majority of stories involve people achieving their goals. Sure, some stories involve people not achieving their goals. Dying in less than ideal circumstances. But those are notable because those are the exceptions. And even then, it is incredibly rare to find a story where the protagonist was given a goal, and they fail to achieve that goal because they died doing something unrelated.

The journey is the point. The journey and the friends you take it with. I don't need people randomly dying off to keep it interesting. I never have. And I don't see achieving goals as only meaningful if I could have died in the process.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Oh, I would never say that death cannot add to the story at all, it surely can add a lot. A cleverly-used death situation can lead to all sorts of interesting events. Even your facetious one!

A note, that actually happens in the comic series Knights of the Dinner table, that I was using the example from. It is a comedy series though, so it isn't meant to be taken literally. It is supposed to be goofy. And an exploitation of the rules, if I remember correctly.

That could be super interesting. That said, having run a game for four years now which has had a few characters rotate in or out (due mostly to people needing to take breaks or going AWOL), it can be...awkward to have to deal with too much rotating. It can lead to excessive emphasis placed on whatever character has been around the longest, or threads that are left relevant and yet never resolved. I cannot say that it would never work, but it would certainly require an approach that is less "a band of Heroes who learn the Deep Secrets of their pasts" and much more "pretty much just ordinary people who happen to encounter extraordinary events without getting too tangled up in those events."

I'm a big fan of Big Damn Heroes and Rule of Cool, though, so I find it hard to stick to stories that are about consistently ordinary characters that never rise beyond the mundane.

Agreed