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

[EzekielRaiden]

I notice a common thread that I've seen in a lot of my 5e players, you seem to have a lot of deaths from bandits following a rest... If a player were to relay experiences like that to me I would think it irresponsible on my point not to bring up logic once made clear in player facing rulebooks It's extremely uncommon for bandits to interrupt a rest when the party travels back to town or whatever in order to rest someplace safe (like a room at the local tavern/inn/whatever). I can't say that I would expect to be trapped within your lodgings by bandits while attempting to flee either but could see a notable bandit presence if the party had already done that a few times in what should have been a single adventuring day.

Two points.

First, this was only how this specific DM ran it. Other DMs, it's mostly just been throwing Mega-Deadly fights at the party and being shocked that they are, in fact, deadly, especially when folks roll poorly.

Second, you highlighted two things, but they're completely different from one another. With the former, we killed the spiders that were at the temple, and thought (we felt reasonably) that we could take an hour to catch our breath and spend our meager HD to get back some health. And, as I would like to remind you, the bandits were only the fourth fight of the entire campaign, so we did not even have the barest glimmer of possibility of being able to say "oh, we should prepare for bandits." It was 100% out of the blue, with a DM who explicitly knew that most of the players (in fact, everyone other than me) were new to 5e and more than half of them were new to TTRPGs in general. The latter--the mummy rot thing--has nothing to do with DM adjudication, and everything to do with how mummy rot, the disease, works. Mummy rot prevents you from regaining HP, and causes you to lose 10 max HP every 24 hours after you're cursed with it. If your max HP becomes 0 due to this effect, it causes instant death, and your body cannot be resurrected because it turns to dust. So it literally was the case that if we'd taken a long rest, my character would just die, because remove curse is a 3rd level spell and we were literally still level 1.

This thread alone has a wide array of posts from folks lamenting the fact that 5e encourages players to ignore risk that should be taken seriously & even some about how the GM adjusting the difficulty to influence that will often backfire to make perfectly mundane gameplay lethal simply by players refusing to adapt. The fact that 5e encourages players to double down on that with a PoV where an interrupted rest leads to a shrug with another rest starting up immediately or after a wait while blaming GMs for the results of not restricting those rests is one of the system's most frustrating design choices.

There was no "ignoring risk" involved in any of these campaigns. The (near-)TPKs happened so quickly, nobody had time to even discover what was safe or unsafe before we got utterly destroyed.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Two points.

First, this was only how this specific DM ran it. Other DMs, it's mostly just been throwing Mega-Deadly fights at the party and being shocked that they are, in fact, deadly, especially when folks roll poorly.

Second, you highlighted two things, but they're completely different from one another. With the former, we killed the spiders that were at the temple, and thought (we felt reasonably) that we could take an hour to catch our breath and spend our meager HD to get back some health. And, as I would like to remind you, the bandits were only the fourth fight of the entire campaign, so we did not even have the barest glimmer of possibility of being able to say "oh, we should prepare for bandits." It was 100% out of the blue, with a DM who explicitly knew that most of the players (in fact, everyone other than me) were new to 5e and more than half of them were new to TTRPGs in general. The latter--the mummy rot thing--has nothing to do with DM adjudication, and everything to do with how mummy rot, the disease, works. Mummy rot prevents you from regaining HP, and causes you to lose 10 max HP every 24 hours after you're cursed with it. If your max HP becomes 0 due to this effect, it causes instant death, and your body cannot be resurrected because it turns to dust. So it literally was the case that if we'd taken a long rest, my character would just die, because remove curse is a 3rd level spell and we were literally still level 1.


There was no "ignoring risk" involved in any of these campaigns. The (near-)TPKs happened so quickly, nobody had time to even discover what was safe or unsafe before we got utterly destroyed.

You have my sympathy as possibly the unluckiest player I have ever heard of. No one I've ever met has had a series of experiences as a gamer anywhere near this consistently negative. That you still want to engage at all is a testament to your dedication and deserves recognition.

 

[KYRON45]

I notice a common thread that I've seen in a lot of my 5e players, you seem to have a lot of deaths from bandits following a rest... If a player were to relay experiences like that to me I would think it irresponsible on my point not to bring up logic once made clear in player facing rulebooks It's extremely uncommon for bandits to interrupt a rest when the party travels back to town or whatever in order to rest someplace safe (like a room at the local tavern/inn/whatever). I can't say that I would expect to be trapped within your lodgings by bandits while attempting to flee either but could see a notable bandit presence if the party had already done that a few times in what should have been a single adventuring day.


This thread alone has a wide array of posts from folks lamenting the fact that 5e encourages players to ignore risk that should be taken seriously & even some about how the GM adjusting the difficulty to influence that will often backfire to make perfectly mundane gameplay lethal simply by players refusing to adapt. The fact that 5e encourages players to double down on that with a PoV where an interrupted rest leads to a shrug with another rest starting up immediately or after a wait while blaming GMs for the results of not restricting those rests is one of the system's most frustrating design choices.

Seems to me like some DMs just like killing PCs.

 

[Umbran]

Is it really that weird?

What is probably weird, from the perspective of most EN World users, is not eventually falling into one that works and stands up for a longer period. I would imagine that a constant diet of games that fall over after 4 sessions would lead most to leave the hobby for something else.

I am very sorry that your experiences have been so bad (or, what would seem bad to me if I went through them, at least). But I do think that they aren't the norm for the population you are speaking to. I think it fair to say that most of us have seen a TPK or two in our days, but not over and over again.

I can only speculate, but I note that it seems like the RPG community has grown dramatically since Covid hit. That can mean a whole lot of people entering the hobby, likely through covid-safe online channels, who don't have much experience yet. And, indeed, the online-pickup-game space might well be skewed towards people who haven't settled into longer-running groups, so they may not have built the skills necessary to support that long-term play, due to lack of example.

Basically - if you're fishing in waters dominated by one kind of fish, yeah that's what you are going to catch...

 

[tetrasodium]

Seems to me like some DMs just like killing PCs.

Not sure how you got there from a post about how going back to town so a safe location can be used to take a rest where dangerous interruptions are unlikely but sure... Since older editions tend to get slammed for being more lethal with players, here's a quote from AD&D2e dmg pg104 on inescapable death.

Spoiler

Inescapable Death
There are occasions when death is unavoidable, no matter
how many hit points a character has.
A character could be locked in a room with no exits, with a
50-ton ceiling descending to crush him. He could be trapped
in an escape-proof box filled with acid. These examples are
extreme (and extremely grisly), but they could happen in a
fantasy world.
As a general guideline, inescapable deaths should be
avoided—characters always should have some chance to
escape a hopeless situation, preferably by using common
sense and intelligence. This maintains the interest of the
players and helps them retain their trust in the DM.
However, if a situation of inescapable death occurs, the
character dies, and there is no need to play such a situa-
tion out round-by-round. Allow the player to attempt rea
sonable (and perhaps even truly heroic) methods of
escape. If these fail, simply inform the player of the demise
of his character. The doomed character is assumed to have
lost all hit points.

Feel like I mentioned older editions giving players a better sense of needing to take steps for self preservation... Seems only fair to mention that they also had a lot more advice than just the above section about fairness the other way around in the need for GM's to give players a chance to make use of those efforts in self preservation.

 

[KYRON45]

J

Not sure how you got there from a post about how going back to town so a safe location can be used to take a rest where dangerous interruptions are unlikely but sure... Since older editions tend to get slammed for being more lethal with players, here's a quote from AD&D2e dmg pg104 on inescapable death.

Spoiler

Inescapable Death
There are occasions when death is unavoidable, no matter
how many hit points a character has.
A character could be locked in a room with no exits, with a
50-ton ceiling descending to crush him. He could be trapped
in an escape-proof box filled with acid. These examples are
extreme (and extremely grisly), but they could happen in a
fantasy world.
As a general guideline, inescapable deaths should be
avoided—characters always should have some chance to
escape a hopeless situation, preferably by using common
sense and intelligence. This maintains the interest of the
players and helps them retain their trust in the DM.
However, if a situation of inescapable death occurs, the
character dies, and there is no need to play such a situa-
tion out round-by-round. Allow the player to attempt rea
sonable (and perhaps even truly heroic) methods of
escape. If these fail, simply inform the player of the demise
of his character. The doomed character is assumed to have
lost all hit points.

Feel like I mentioned older editions giving players a better sense of needing to take steps for self preservation... Seems only fair to mention that they also had a lot more advice than just the above section about fairness the other way around in the need for GM's to give players a chance to make use of those efforts in self preservation.

Just my point of view. A random encounter that massacres a party seems counterproductive to long term play.

 

[tetrasodium]

J

Just my point of view. A random encounter that massacres a party seems counterproductive to long term play.

It can be, but perspective matters and there are two sides to that coin. You've been talking about GM's who "like killing PCs" and using an overly-wide brush to include GM's faced with players so dedicated to excessive resting that they as players are willing to effectively say "oh yea? I dare you to stop this".

In the past any interruption, even a minor one, could be dangerous in ways that encouraged players to be sure they went someplace safe & definitely were not daring the GM to stop it before taking a rest. That poor design decision left "we are taking a rest and you can't stop it from eventually happening without a massacre" at one end and "YGBSM... ok.. forced challenge accepted" resting half a razor's edge to its sides the entire spectrum with the gm being blamed for the result of either outcome.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Not sure how you got there from a post about how going back to town so a safe location can be used to take a rest where dangerous interruptions are unlikely but sure... Since older editions tend to get slammed for being more lethal with players, here's a quote from AD&D2e dmg pg104 on inescapable death.

Spoiler

Inescapable Death
There are occasions when death is unavoidable, no matter
how many hit points a character has.
A character could be locked in a room with no exits, with a
50-ton ceiling descending to crush him. He could be trapped
in an escape-proof box filled with acid. These examples are
extreme (and extremely grisly), but they could happen in a
fantasy world.
As a general guideline, inescapable deaths should be
avoided—characters always should have some chance to
escape a hopeless situation, preferably by using common
sense and intelligence. This maintains the interest of the
players and helps them retain their trust in the DM.
However, if a situation of inescapable death occurs, the
character dies, and there is no need to play such a situa-
tion out round-by-round. Allow the player to attempt rea
sonable (and perhaps even truly heroic) methods of
escape. If these fail, simply inform the player of the demise
of his character. The doomed character is assumed to have
lost all hit points.

Feel like I mentioned older editions giving players a better sense of needing to take steps for self preservation... Seems only fair to mention that they also had a lot more advice than just the above section about fairness the other way around in the need for GM's to give players a chance to make use of those efforts in self preservation.

Seems like a concerted effort in modern D&D to do away with using your own judgement (GM and players alike) in favoring of just blindly following the rulebook.

 

[KYRON45]

It can be, but perspective matters and there are two sides to that coin. You've been talking about GM's who "like killing PCs" and using an overly-wide brush to include GM's faced with players so dedicated to excessive resting that they as players are willing to effectively say "oh yea? I dare you to stop this".

In the past any interruption, even a minor one, could be dangerous in ways that encouraged players to be sure they went someplace safe & definitely were not daring the GM to stop it before taking a rest. That poor design decision left "we are taking a rest and you can't stop it from eventually happening without a massacre" at one end and "YGBSM... ok.. forced challenge accepted" resting half a razor's edge to its sides the entire spectrum with the gm being blamed for the result of either outcome

I’ve never been thwarted by players taking a rest. I just don’t see the point of “that’ll show em” DMing.
Play how you like of course. To me the constant PC turnover is a turn off.
We all play different games.

 

[KYRON45]

Seems like a concerted effort in modern D&D to do away with using your own judgement (GM and players alike) in favoring of just blindly following the rulebook.

As a DM I would never allow a random encounter to have a deadly impact on my campaign. That would be like having a guest speaker set the auditorium on fire.*

*this analogy sounded better in my head.