D&D General If not death, then what?

[Chaosmancer]

You have sum up my view in your last paragraph much much better than I could ever have achieve.
@EzekielRaiden, @AcererakTriple6, @Chaosmancer, read this paragraph and this is exactly what I meant all along.

Okay, but just because "hope springs eternal" doesn't mean that the pain of loss is meaningless. I've experienced deaths in my family, I'm still alive and can find new family members, but that doesn't mean that that pain doesn't stick with you.

And that's what I got from your "been there, done that". It was basically a list of "I've played that story, bored of it, move on." Yeah, the party can rebuild a destroyed kingdom, but the kingdom was still destroyed, they still failed. That still impacts them and now their story isn't what it was, but is shaped by the loss and the failure they suffered. I find that meaningful.

They do a wonderful job. Do not think of saying that my players will do less than their best to play any characters they play.

As for the gotcha, it comes from the habit of certain DM to introduce NPCs as mule for theor villains or that the NPCs are villains. I got tires of these charades a long time ago. Betrayals can happen, but there will be hints and this stuff is just boring when over used up to the point where players do not want any NPCs ever after.

Okay? So... just because a DM is playing an NPC doesn't mean they have to betray the party, Just, don't overdo betrayals. Doesn't mean the players now to RP any NPC that joins the party.

 

[Chaosmancer]

You are still in the group. You adapted and got new opportunity. You simply lost your character and its mile long background. But their important thing is, you are still at the table. With a different character, sure. But you, as a player, is still there and your character will be remembered, or not. It depends on your deeds.

So... character death is better than altering the story based on loss, because I get to play a completely different character with completely different goals? Again, you aren't defending why things like losing a kingdom or seeing the countryside burn are "not consequences" but playing a new character with no background, just like the other character with no background, is a consequence. I'd still be at the table playing if instead of dying my character was cursed too. And I'd still be remembered for my deeds, and possibly for that cool story of how I handled being cursed. Instead of disconnecting from every plot thread and restarting the game. I'm still at the table either way, so what's the difference?

 

[Medic]

"Permanent consequences" don't exist in D&D.

I mean... they kind of do, even if it's not dying.

If that is the actual thing being aimed for, well...all I can say is, I think that's a bad definition of permanence with regard to consequences. It trivializes the fact that change requires time (which, unfortunately, we as gamers only have finite amounts of!), but more importantly, it creates an incentive to never care about anything at all, unless it involves your own death. It numbs. The value of a life well-lived, of familiar places and beloved possessions and loved ones is lost, crushed beneath the insistence that, unless you can die, nothing matters.

Ultimately, it's equivalent to saying that the game never actually matters, because very few games consistently end with a TPK. Eventually, someone rides off into the sunset--which, by this uncompromising metric, by definition means the adventure was pointless.

Every single one of those caveats, particularly stuff like "some meager vengeance, however unfulfilling," are the permanent consequences. You lose something you can't get back. Oh, sure, you can try to do something else. But you can never go back to the way things were. That's a permanent thing.

Or, if you prefer something poetic...

Nothing Gold Can Stay

Nature’s first green is gold,
Her hardest hue to hold.
Her early leaf’s a flower;
But only so an hour.
Then leaf subsides to leaf.
So Eden sank to grief,
So dawn goes down to day.
Nothing gold can stay.

— Robert Frost

Some of the greatest tragedies in legend, literature, and actual history have been not the death of flesh, but the death of hope, the death of dreams. And there are things in this world which have no survival value, but rather which give value to survival, the loss of which would absolutely be a fate worse than death--for without them, there would be no difference in value between life and death.

This applies to you, too, @Helldritch.

Just in case it wasn't clear, I don't necessarily agree with their premise, it is just an effort on my part to understand where they're coming from. I myself don't think that any danger at all is required to have a compelling narrative, but I don't have a prohibition against monsters mashing unlucky players either. To me, it's mostly dependent on the genre and system.

 

[JiffyPopTart]

Chiming in to add a bit of data, but not really to add much to the discussion. Yip-Yip the kobold druid had a CON of 10. I never roll for HP so I did indeed have 8+(9*5)=53HP. I was fully healed at the start of the battle and took either 2 or 3 more HP from the spell than I had. The damage would have been either 55 or 56 from the 12d6 roll ... but I'm only ASSUMING it was 12d6 because I looked at the PHB and tried to discern what was cast at us based on the 60' radius, massive damage, and blindness condition.

The giant zombie was a grave titan, once again I am assuming because the GM showed us a picture and it matched the pic in the book. The grave titan does 2X +12/6d6+8ish attacks a round which is the damage we were avoiding by refusing to engage it in melee.

Once again, the druid could see the wizard, who could see the barbarian. All three were either KOed or blinded by the spell which is what prevented reinforcing each other. The druid was KOed and took no additional actions in the fight. The wizard was blinded and wasted 3 rounds drinking potions and making a save (and then only made it because the GM lowered the DC to 10 from 17 to give him a chance). The barbarian wasted one turn blind and healing, then raged and charged the grave titan who had stopped freaking out from the heat metal and was advancing towards us looking for a target.

The grave titan was not affected by the spell, it was more than 100' away.

The map I showed AS I SAID was not the actual map, it was just something that showed the relative positions of the three characters hit by the spell and how there was no cover to be had. No characters or villains in the battle were off the map we were actually using in play.

Finally I think I'm done posting about my experience. There is a lot of Monday Morning Quarterbacking going on and I'm getting tired of being told all the ways I'm at fault (including apparently not min-maxing my stats instead of building the character I want to play) because that's the narrative that has to apply to fit a preconceived notion that fault vs. accident doesn't work in RPGs like it does in real life.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I think this is probably the biggest difference between us. I don't see trying to survive as part of the game. Heck, the "deadly situations" part is mostly a consequence of the types of heroics the party wants to get up to. But I know I've been on the edge of my seat when fellow party members step into a dueling ring or an arena. Death isn't on the table there, you cannot die in a friendly duel, but I'm still invested because survival isn't the point.

When we delve into the Lich's tomb, it isn't a question of "can we survive" but it is a question of "Can we stop the Lich". And this could be in part because if survival was a goal... we wouldn't be going on the adventure. We want to survive, because we want to keep playing these characters, but it isn't a goal to survive. Just like it isn't a goal or a question in 90% of media whether or not the protagonist survives til the end of the story.



But does the situation need to demand it?

Like, let's take a full on Deus ex Machina. Pelor sends a literal angel to revive you, or some other blatant divine intervention. Sure, if you are Smedly the theif who nicked Pelor's silver, this is bizarrely out-of-character and would break immersion. If you are Truth, the Celestial Warlock Pelor chose to send on a mission to stop Moloch's agents, and you haven't stopped them yet? Then Pelor going "I do not give you permission to die until your mission is complete" fits into the logic of the Game World 100%. This totally could happen in a fantasy story. And since you almost failed, Pelor demands more of you because they are investing in your life.

And I think that is why a lot of us kind of scratch our heads. Death is already a revolving door in DnD. There are literal forces of the universer like Levistus which are bound to offer aid to mortals in peril. There is always something that can be done in the situation, the situation very very rarely "demands" death nor does it demand that death is irreversible.

You may find that Gonzo, or out-of-genre, but this is high fantasy where people summon angels and descend into hell to punch out embodiments of evil. The question isn't "is it possible" but "what are the consequences" and it has the additional bonus of keeping the character in the story, which is important to a lot of us.



See, for me and for a lot of the people I play with? The PCs are integral to the health of the Campaign. If I have Truth, the Celestial Warlock who is tracking the cult of Moloch, then if Truth vanishes, all the stuff I was doing with Moloch's agents is disrupted. That was designed to be THEIR part of the story, and focus on the things that player wanted to do. Maybe they make a new character who follows the same plot, but I feel like that should be their choice.

And it is worse if you have something built up with a specific connection between a single character and a single NPC villain. The "I'm hunted by X" story is pretty compelling for some people, but if they are dead, then whatever planning I've put into that storyline is just gone, because you can't hunt them if they are dead.

So, I agree with you that the players are most important, and the Campaign is important, but I see the PCs as vital to the campaign. They aren't and sometimes really shouldn't be interchangeable pieces.

I don't do collaborative storytelling in my games. We're not dedicated to creating a satisfying narrative that requires the protagonists all survive to face their narratively-demanded fate. I don't want my DM (if I'm a player) to search for in-game excuses why my PC didn't die this time. For me, you play your best, you create your story as you're playing, and you take it as far as your choices and the luck of the dice allow. Anything beyond that is special treatment I don't want, and don't want to provide.

As you said, that is the difference between us. Nothing wrong with that. You were right about another thing too. It doesn't have to be the way I'm saying. There are other, equally valid playstyles. This is the way I want it.

 

[Micah Sweet]

So... character death is better than altering the story based on loss, because I get to play a completely different character with completely different goals? Again, you aren't defending why things like losing a kingdom or seeing the countryside burn are "not consequences" but playing a new character with no background, just like the other character with no background, is a consequence. I'd still be at the table playing if instead of dying my character was cursed too. And I'd still be remembered for my deeds, and possibly for that cool story of how I handled being cursed. Instead of disconnecting from every plot thread and restarting the game. I'm still at the table either way, so what's the difference?

The #1 issue i have with no character death is simply that the idea breaks my sense of verisimilitude. You need to be able to die sometimes, because sometimes bad things happen and you're not going to make it. If that can't happen, the world ceases to feel real to me, and THAT'S why none of the other stuff in the game matters to me anymore. Because you're no longer a person in the world who might have a really bad day or make a big mistake and buy the farm. You're a protagonist with infinite plot armor, whose special story must go on. I'm not telling a story first, I'm a person in a fantasy world first.

Incidentally, while I allow raise dead and similar effects in my games, it is much harder to accomplish at my table, and I personally never do it for my own PCs. Dead is dead if I have my way. That way, every PC's story has a beginning, and an end, and that mortality makes it worthwhile.

 

[pemerton]

I just GMed a session of Prince Valiant. Death was never on the line, because as the rules say (p ) "Normally death is not an important part of Prince Valiant."

The PCs did suffer several losses: they led their warband to reinforce an army under attack, and while their initial assault on the flank succeeded, their attempt to join up with their allies failed, and one of their number was knocked unconscious in the fray. A second PC, who had ridden ahead of the assault to engage the enemy leader in one-on-one combat, found himself isolated from his allies as a result and was in danger of being captured. Only good luck allowed his companions to rally their forces and allow him to be extricated safely from his predicament.

When the PCs and their warband fell back with their allies to the latter's castle, they worked out some sort of nefariousness was afoot. The third PC, who is the marshall of their military order, was surveying the castle's defences in anticipation of a possible night-time attack when he was shot by an arrow, and then narrowly succeeded in stopping a spy, who had infiltrated via the postern, from opening the main gate.

Then the word spread that the infant son of the NPC lord of the castle was missing; so was the suspected traitor. The PCs failed to persuade the lord not to ride forth in search of his son; so two of them rode out with him. Their tracker was unsuccessful, and so it took them several hours of falling false trails through the hills before they saw their quarry on the plain. They were able to catch most of them with hard riding, and the vainglorious PC took a leader NPC prisoner: but the attempt by the marshall to catch the traitor with the son failed, and the latter made it to a friendly castle.

In the meantime, the night-time assault n the friendly castle took place, with the third PC - who is the weakest at generalship - leading the defence. He failed in that endeavour, and so the castle fell - although he was able to escape through a secret tunnel with only his wife, his hunter companion, and the teenage daughter of the castle's lord (the sister of the kidnapped brother). His scout was successful in leading them to join up with the others on the plain between the two castles.

The PCs then decided to retreat to a third castle, which is garrisoned by their soldiers, to interrogate their prisoner and perhaps then negotiate an exchange of hostages. The roll of their hunter (guiding them through the hills to the north) vs the NPC army's hunter (trying to track them down) was tied, and so they were spotted as the PC helped his wife scramble up one of the last of the ridges. So then it was a sheer contest of speed: and the PCs lost.

We ended the session there; the next session will begin with finding out what happens to them as their pursuers close on them just outside the walls of the castle where their own soldiers are the garrison.

Although the session I've described was resolved using a different system from D&D, I don't think there's any reason in principle why D&D can't similarly put things at stake other than PC death.

 

[DND_Reborn]

The anger I'm reading in your post right now?

I'm done justifying my point of view.

 

[Helldritch]

So . . . what? I seriously don't get the point of what you're saying. Sure, non-fatal consequences aren't permanent. Guess what? In D&D, fatal consequences aren't permanent either. Resurrection magic exists. The party could go to the Outer Planes and continue adventuring with the deceased soul of their adventuring party. They could bargain with a god of death to get their party member back. "Permanent consequences" don't exist in D&D. Death is no more permanent than a lost limb, being driven insane, being turned into a newt by a hag that cast True Polymorph, or any other consequence the DM could inflict upon a PC.

So, your view is that "death is necessary to enhance the stakes of the game because it's the only permanent consequence"? That's not true, because death isn't permanent in D&D.

That's my position. Death isn't necessary to enhance the stakes of the game due to it being the ultimate consequence because it is just as temporary as a lot of other consequences a DM could give to a PC.

Resurection magic is pretty hard to come by and comes with its own restriction.
IF you die at low levels and even mid level. You might not get to have the opportunity to get raised from the dead in the first place.

Revivify is pretty expensive for its low level. 300 gold diamonds do not come cheap for such characters which will have to pool their resources to have a priest (if in the group) to cast it once or twice when on adventure. Even then, the death must happens before the one minute time lapse occurs and the body must be mostly intact. Not impossible, I agree, but the limitations are there. AND the cleric must still have an appropriate spell slots. If a death occurred, there are good chances that this spell slot is gone already to help in combat. And you must not be undead. As it will simply "revive" you in the undead status. The spell does not cure ailments or missing body parts. Something a lot of people forget. Having a foe using animate dead on the body of a fallen hero is a sure way to make certain that hero will not come back at you.

Raise dead is next one. A 500 gp diamond is again not necessarily cheap but at this level, it should be affordable to most groups. The problem of having the body mostly is still there. Dying to the breath of a dragon, almost always mean that the body is not mostly intact. Not necessarily destroyed but not necessarily raisable either. Circumstances will dictate IF the body is raisable. And at these levels, you start to encounter foes able to cast disentegrate, throw acid at you (which dissolve a body) and even creature that will swallow you whole and make your body unraisable by raise dead. Then there is the 10 days delay which is not something to sniff at if you are in the middle of a desert and your cleric can't cast the spell yet. Also, you must not have been an undead. Having a foe using animate dead on the body of a fallen hero is a sure way to make certain that hero will not come back at you.

Reincarnation is there at this level too. For most players it is a no go as it profoundly changes the character. In some circle it is acceptable but I know that at my table, no players would want that. Again, the ten days requirement and the 1000 gp of rare oils and unguents are not that easy to come by. Again, being undead prevents any form of reincarnation. Undead is not of the type that can be reincarnated (specifically target humanoid creature only, not undead). Again, Having a foe using animate dead on the body of a fallen hero is a sure way to make certain that hero will not come back at you.

Resurrection. Now we're talking! Restore missing body part, long fail safe period of one year to get the money and components if the group's healer can't cast it. Still can not raise the undead however... The 1000 gp diamond, at this stage, is barely a requirement. Only real problem is to find a caster able to cast it, and willing to cast it for you. Easier said than done depending on the setting. Unless you play FR where there are zounds of stratospheric casters, you better have good connection to a high ranking cleric of a god. Or a bard, for some reasons, bards can cast this but not druids...

True Resurrection. Now we truly have the best one. It does lifts any curses afflicting the deceased so by extension, a generous DM could allow the curse of undeath to be lifted by it. Or not... It even create a body for convenience! 25000 gp for the diamond should not be a problem at this point, but finding a caster able and willing might be. Just like resurrection, if you're caster can't cast it, you will need to have good connection with a church or druidic circle... (bards are barred from this spell.)

Wish. I include wish here because even though at heart, this spell only duplicate 8th or lower level spell, I would personally allow a true resurrection if the death had occurred recently. But the chances of losing the capacity to cast this spell ever again is 33%. Something NPC casters will never risk, and that PC will hesitate if not downright refuse to do.

So yes, in D&D death can be overcome. But most spells requires
1) Intact body (or mostly intact) that are still functional. Missing a limb might be a problem but nothing that can't be overcome. Missing a head... well, tough luck.
2) Not being undead. Only True Resurrection (ok, wish could too) will allow such a revival.
3) Money.

Do you see now that death can be overcome but it is not a sure thing? All other setback can be overcome. The character just have to survive long enough to get access to the solution to the problem at hand. Only death has the potential to truly be permanent.

You lost a leg? Accept the loss, have movement penalty until you have the money or the capacity to get a regeneration spell cast on your limb or get a magical replacement.

Lost a loved one? Well, same as above. A resurrection will probably do the trick. Unless the DM was devious enough to transform that loved one into undead. Then you will need True Resurrection.

Lost your kingdom? Well, it sucks but if you live long enough, you might get it back.

A wraith killed you and you became a spectre? Sorry lad, you're done. If you were low-mid level chances are that this character will never see the light of day ever again.

Got swallowed by a purple worm and died of the acid? Good chances that there is nothing left of you to raise. At 21 hp of acid damage per turn, how much HP does a body have? And remember that this thing dissolves rocks fast enough to move at 30 feet per round! That is very fast and a fact that many DM and players alike often forget.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

The #1 issue i have with no character death is simply that the idea breaks my sense of verisimilitude. You need to be able to die sometimes, because sometimes bad things happen and you're not going to make it. If that can't happen, the world ceases to feel real to me, and THAT'S why none of the other stuff in the game matters to me anymore. Because you're no longer a person in the world who might have a really bad day or make a big mistake and buy the farm. You're a protagonist with infinite plot armor, whose special story must go on. I'm not telling a story first, I'm a person in a fantasy world first.

Why does the lack of random, permanent, irrevocable death create, as you say, "infinite plot armor"? That implies a level of indestructibility and guaranteed success which is not present, at least, not in my game; it very very strongly connotes that you see every attempted action as instantly successful with no real effort put in, which is likewise not true at all of my game or most no-death/low-death games (again, noting mine is technically the latter.)

I expect players to work with me and exercise good judgment. Being a ridiculous murderhobo who exploits genre conventions, flaunts logic, and dives headlong into danger "because the DM won't kill me, he said so!" will result in dead characters, because I won't tolerate that kind of behavior at my table. Being reckless because you have done the work to show your character has poor impulse control and a thirst for danger? Sure, knock yourself out (perhaps literally), so long as you aren't being exploitative. But if you cross that line into exploiting my goodwill, you will find I am not nearly so accommodating.

I, by intent, run a very magical world. It is also very mundane, which despite many claims otherwise is not a contradiction, because I work to include the lives of ordinary people and the ways magic can serve small domestic purposes (e.g., someone gained full financial independence and an income she could retire on via developing self-heating crockery, a crazy useful tool in the semi-arid to full desert Tarrakhuna region.) A world where the boundaries of life and death are fuzzy: the Spirit World exists, a layer of the mortal world that one must be trained to look into, where restless souls linger before passing on. As a result, resurrection is often (but not always) possible, and there are strange forces and unknown magics out in the desert, forgotten secrets and alien technologies which might permit things heretofore considered impossible.

That freedom to act comes with the great responsibility to use it very carefully. To justify what I do and why, in a way that is intuitive and reasonable but not so blindingly obvious that you can just see it instantly (well, not every time anyway!) Or, failing that, to make a quest of it: why IS this seemingly-impossible situation happening? We explore these results together. If a character dies, Death may make his bargain to restore them (a default thing in DW). Or the detested fiendish heritage of the character could rear its "ugly" head (actually quite handsome, for a half-devil/half-demon) and cling to life, but with Consequences for the character, e.g. "Oh, you died, young Prince. But you remember how your...condition...was one where you were half-human, half-devil, half-demon? I'm afraid it was life finally balancing the scales...because your human half is what died. You are now a full outsider, just with certain grandfathered-in perks, shall we say." Or a chorus of voices, those who depend on the PC as the last of their kind that can free them from their self-imposed exile, expend part of their own existence to preserve him, for without him they are lost.

Etc. These are not, at least to my mind, "plot armor." They are not bad consequences being wished away because such cannot be borne. Instead, it is something valuable to the PC being lost forever (unlike fiendish power, humanity cannot be simply obtained with the right kind of pact!), or a terrible price extracted from those the party desperately wishes to save, or the world itself bearing the scars of failure and defeat to forever remind the player "sure, you lived, but at what cost?"

Incidentally, while I allow raise dead and similar effects in my games, it is much harder to accomplish at my table, and I personally never do it for my own PCs. Dead is dead if I have my way. That way, every PC's story has a beginning, and an end, and that mortality makes it worthwhile.

So, ends other than death simply do not exist? That's an unusually strong claim to make.

That said though, if what you want is for your character to stay dead if they die, awesome, you fit in perfectly. Because that means every time your character dies it has your active approval. I won't hold your fellows to that standard, but I can respect it as the standard for your stuff. That might make it harder to produce a narrative you would find engaging, but there are paths that can be taken--perhaps your character's story is more the story of a mantle he or she bears, similar to the Green Lantern rings or Captain America and his shield, where the death of one bearer does not totally snip the threads, but does significantly affect things nonetheless?