Vaalingrade
Legend
Is death supposed to be part of difficulty -- a result of skill, a penalty for the DM thinking you did something stupid regardless of what you thought, or just blind chaos with no rhyme or reason because, dice?
This. I am not actively attempting to kill the PCs. I throw them in situations I think they can handle. I do not expect they die, because all the potential troubles this brings to game continuity. But, if a death occurs, it occurs. No cheat.Shouldn't there be an option for: as often as it happens?
Our OP doesn't clarify the titular question much, except to add that it's related to challenge and deadliness of a campaign. So what we have is . . . what we have (or what I've bothered to dig up from the thread). I guess it boils down to "how often" should PCs die? The "in 5e" part might be inconsequential, or a profound statement on how lame the whole HP/AC/DeathSave system in the 5RD is . . . but anyway. "It depends on luck and choices" isn't a full cop-out, because yes, it often depends on luck and choices, but sometimes a DM doesn't know how to use the kid-gloves, rendering luck and choices moot, so there can be that factor at play. And then there's the aforementioned lame system, which all-but-removes death from the table (intended), also suggesting that luck and choices don't play into the question.I feel like "it depends on luck and choices!" is kind of a cop-out of an answer. Like, yes, of course, but luck is just statistics, so how many nat 1's or < 5's or < 10's need to happen to yeet a character from this mortal coil? And choices are just a question of genre - should the party be able to choose to single-handedly attack a well-defended fortress and expect to survive? What if it's a kobold warren? What if it's a giant steading? A dragon's hoard?
I'm trying to wrap my head around this psychology: "my character could die, so I just won't get invested in the character or story." I don't think that's something a DM is likely to face. Especially in D&D 5e/6e. Who is going to spend an hour or more making a character (okay, 30 minutes if it's pre-subclasses) and then not care about it? It's the player who shows up with a three-clicks-online character who is less likely to be invested, and then it's not an issue of "could the character die?" It's an issue of "did the player care in the first place?"But, at the same time, I think that actually losing a character should happen basically never. Not even 1/campaign. Still on the table, perhaps, if many things go wrong at the same time (I got swallowed by the purple worm and knocked unconscious and the party fled and couldn't recover my body), but it's not something that a player should ever really expect to happen to their character. Know there's a distant possibility of, yes, but never expect. And, again, it's a psychology thing - I want my players to be invested in their characters and the story and world they're in. That is harder to ramp up to if folks know their characters are disposable. Keeping the threat of the ultimate death in play stops players from treating this more like a story than a game, but basically keeping it at bay means that we can still enjoy the story in this game.
So does this genre choice have anything to do with what level the PCs are?Character death doesn't actually relate much to difficulty, I think. Character death tends to be more a genre choice. Where on the Storytelling <-> Gameplaying spectrum is your particular game? In stories, protagonists only die when there's a dang good reason. In games, death/failure is cheap and frequent and maybe kind of the fun. D&D 5e handles the middle of that spectrum pretty well, erring maybe a bit too hard on the Storytelling side. But it hits where I tend to prefer, which is a little more on the Storytelling side anyway. Not WITHOUT the game, just that the story gets to take the lead pretty often.
Let me say these answers have been interesting and insightful. They also are making me wonder... what exactly is meant when people claim 5e isn't lethal enough or is easy mode...
Super-deadly, when I ran 5e those 2 timesThere is alot of discussion around whether 5e needs to be harder, more challenging and more deadly, so it got me to wondering just how deadly do people want their campaigns to be...
GMI'm also curious on whether someone being a player or a DM affects the answer so feel free to let me know which you are.
If it isn't deadly, why play? Seriously. You can just toss the books & dice & play Pretend™ but that 'aint D&DFinally I'd be interested in hearing why you feel your selection is the sweet spot
Easily. It's all in the action economy. Just overwhelm the partyand whether you feel it can be achieved with 5e
Any ttrpg with mortal PCs can be as deadly as you want. If you haven't had a TPK yet, you've failed your playersand if not what edition or even other game you think hits your sweet spot better.
I think we get the point.I think people are missing the point. Death happens when it happens in the game, when the dice say so and when poor decisions put PCs in untenable situations.
The question is on average how often in a campaign do you think that should generally be coming up.
We've been playing for 40ish years. I've never had a TPK.Super-deadly, when I ran 5e those 2 times
GM
If it isn't deadly, why play? Seriously. You can just toss the books & dice & play Pretend™ but that 'aint D&D
Easily. It's all in the action economy. Just overwhelm the party
Any ttrpg with mortal PCs can be as deadly as you want. If you haven't had a TPK yet, you've failed your players
What if the question is really, "I think I'm killing my PCs too often. How often do your PCs die, so I can gauge myself?"I think we get the point.
Unless you are planning PC deaths, there is no "schedule" for how often they die.
I've had PCs die in the first session and i've had PCs last for a hundred sessions.