D&D General How Often Should a PC Die in D&D 5e?

[HaroldTheHobbit]

Fine. Have your characters die. Have fun.

The point is that there is no "trigger" - it isn't/shouldn't be a specific act on the GM's part to kill the character. The GM provides challenges. You beat them or you don't.

It's a General D&D thread, and in older D&D one component is - at least how I understand it and GM it - than not all encounters are meant to be able to beat for the PCs, at the current level, without the artifact weapon etc etc.

In those cases the GM explicitly create TPK encounters, ie encounters that kill players if they engage in it at the current power level and point in time. That is definitely a specific act of the GM to kill the players, even if one semantically construct it as GM-neutral encounter within the framing of a specific game. A TPK encounter in those circumstances is not made out of malice, but out of an implied playstyle that lots of players still seem to enjoy.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Without popularity of some sort a game dies.

Granted. But it doesn't have to be the "most" popular. All paths do not lead to WotC 5.5.

 

[Umbran]

In those cases the GM explicitly create TPK encounters, ie encounters that kill players if they engage in it at the current power level and point in time. That is definitely a specific act of the GM to kill the players

For that style of gaming, player choice to engage is a prominent feature. The GM is supposed to include enough information in the world for the players to be able to choose not to engage.

Like, if you have a bunch of 1st level characters, and right out of the gate, the GM pops up a surprise purple worm that is faster than the PCs... that GM is being a jerk.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Fine. Have your characters die. Have fun.

The point is that there is no "trigger" - it isn't/shouldn't be a specific act on the GM's part to kill the character. The GM provides challenges. You beat them or you don't.

Of course. But if in practice the PCs always beat the challenge, IMO it just changes how it feels.

 

[Umbran]

Of course. But if in practice the PCs always beat the challenge, IMO it just changes how it feels.

I am not here to argue over how it should feel to you. I have zero inclination to engage with you about that.

So, fine, have your characters die. Have fun.

 

[Maxperson]

Ok so what would constitute death being a "real" possibility? Is a 1% chance enough? 5 or 10% chance PC's die? More and is this in every fight?

I think what many of us are saying is that it's not really quantifiable like that. Even if we were able to figure out 1% or 4% or whatever, engineering an exact percentage would be choosing how often we prefer death to happen, which isn't what we are saying. We're saying that there should be a chance of it, but we don't prefer it to happen.

So what I do is create an encounter that will be a challenge or hard or whatever adjective is good. If an encounter is at least going to be a challenge for them, then there exists the possibility that bad luck and/or bad planning/tactics will create a situation where a PC dies. With good luck or good planning, the chance might be 0%. With bad luck or horrible tactics, it could be 10% or more. There's no way to know in advance.

 

[jayoungr]

I didn't know PC death was possible in 5e after level 2.

Seen it and done it.

In Tier 1, off the top of my head: Beholder zombie, young blue dragon, the puzzle box in Descent into Avernus. Also came pretty close with a banshee.

ETA: Oh yeah, forgot the basilisk. Though technically the PC was just petrified, not dead.

 

[Imaro]

I think the op question is phrased wrong. It's not about how often PCs SHOULD die. I think many of us GMs cheer on our party and don't want anyone to die.

It's more about the possibility that PCs COULD die. I've played a lot of Savage Worlds over the last years, and even if it's not a super deadly system with Bennies etc it's also a very swingy system where death actually can happen.

But lately I've become more and more invested in DCC and OSR games. And a big part of that is that it's simply more fun and satisfying for me to GM games where PC death is a real risk and motivating force for players to be smart, tactical and not hobo rush every encounter, and instead seek smart ways to handle encounters.

With GM work and house ruling you can work real risk of death into any system, but it's not how for example raw 5e is constructed.

OK so let me ask... if it's not about actual death but instead possibility... how are you determining system A is more lethal than system B? What's the yardstick?

 

[Reynard]

Of course. But if in practice the PCs always beat the challenge, IMO it just changes how it feels.

This seems to go against your general pro-verisimilitude approach. If you design the world "logically" and the PCs always win through some combination of smart play and luck, isn't that exactly how it should feel? Why would you punish players for success by making it harder? Shouldn't they be the ones to choose to.engage the tougher challenges, under your play philosophy?

 

[Imaro]

I think what many of us are saying is that it's not really quantifiable like that. Even if we were able to figure out 1% or 4% or whatever, engineering an exact percentage would be choosing how often we prefer death to happen, which isn't what we are saying. We're saying that there should be a chance of it, but we don't prefer it to happen.

So what I do is create an encounter that will be a challenge or hard or whatever adjective is good. If an encounter is at least going to be a challenge for them, then there exists the possibility that bad luck and/or bad planning/tactics will create a situation where a PC dies. With good luck or good planning, the chance might be 0%. With bad luck or horrible tactics, it could be 10% or more. There's no way to know in advance.

And this leads me back to claims of 5e's lethality being to low or non-existant... how does one determine this?