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

[Vaalingrade]

It of course is not, but I still feel it flattens the tension and stakes somewhat. Have you actually used these methods to reverse deaths? How did the players feel about it?

Maybe if we used actual stakes rather than the one stake mainstream entertainment has been allowed to use in anything for the past quarter decade the stakes wouldn't be threatened by the threat of wasting a player's time and effort.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Is it more or less salty than the realization that the DM is actually against you, not in the kayfabe sort of way and is real salty that they think it's too hard to take your character away?

I wouldn't know, as I am not against the players. And the objective is not to kill the characters, it is to have the death matter in an unlikely case it happens. I also gave the party's healer, who is a bard, access to revivify, even though that's not normally bard spell.

And let me check my notes and count how many characters have died during the 42 sessions of my current campaign.

Counting, this might take a while.

Oh, it is zero.

 

[prabe]

I think that the trouble with all of that bolded bit is that the context matters & that context makes it an unreasonable foot in the door wedge issue assumption that villainizes half the discussion. There really are not too many scenarios in d&d where a dead PC amounts to make a new PC. Those situations tend to be things like these:

Putting them in spoiler because all of these types of scenarios can be shut down into being technically permanent with "the player wants a new PC" or "the player doesn't want to work with the GM/ the GM doesn't feel like the player's efforts at working with them are reasonable", but that leads into a totally different set of discussions. Those discussions have nothing to do with death of a PC or that PC death being permanent.

Spoiler

So you're saying that death other than "make a new character" (more like "sit tight until we bring your character back') is a suitable consequence, and it's perfectly OK that bringing back dead PCs is so easy in D&D 5e? I'm not particularly inclined to disagree. I think it's easy to read "I want resurrection to be harder/rarer/whateverer" (or "I want PC death to matter") as "I want the players to make new characters more often." I think it's worth pondering how long you expect players to "sit tight" if their characters are even only temporarily dead, though.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Now or ever? They might lack such ability at the moment, but they might gain it later.

I mean, if we allow "ever" then that's a massively different question. You could have the characters wake up resurrected in a cyberpunk future if you want. I find that sort of argument pretty tedious. If it isn't going to functionally happen in the next, say, month? I think we can reasonably call that "not happening." Certainly, the person who played the dead PC isn't going to be super happy about spending the next "I have no idea how many" weeks waiting for the possibility of a resurrection, yeah? At which point you've already asked them to make a new character anyway, or you've literally just shut them out of the game entirely. Either way, it's equivalent to the character actually being permanently dead, they have to give up what they were playing and either not participate whatsoever, or try to invest in a brand-new character.

Yes, and I don't like it! Like I said, I prefer death to be rare but permanent.

Given the propensity folks have had for casually asking if D&D is really the right fit for "my" side....it seems a little odd that your perspective is that D&D has ever been like that. That is, early D&D, death was in no way rare. It was exceedingly common at most tables. Exceptions existed, but they were exactly that, exceptions. There, death could be quite permanent but it wasn't even remotely rare. With recent editions (meaning, WotC ones), death may or may not be rare but it isn't permanent.

If D&D has never actually offered the combination you desire, why do you look to D&D for that experience?

It of course is not, but I still feel it flattens the tension and stakes somewhat. Have you actually used these methods to reverse deaths? How did the players feel about it?

No PCs have actually died in my Dungeon World game. There was one pseudo-death because the player was taking an indefinite hiatus, but after he and I discussed it, he agreed to do something slightly different, not dying but being "taken away" in the style of Enoch or Elijah. When the player did (temporarily) return, the character's development paid off in rather a major way, and I could tell that he was happier with this outcome than he would've been with the character being dead. So...I dunno if that counts, seeing as it wasn't "my HP dropped to 0 and I just died", but rather a purely narrative event. (In this case, using his burgeoning shaman powers to call on the One, the monotheistic deity of the Safiqi religion, for aid in slaying an extremely dangerous spirit. Player had expected this to kill the character; after discussing it, we agreed that the One was more likely to want to teach, assuming lessons could be taught, albeit through intermediaries because They almost never directly intervene in the world.)

 

[Vaalingrade]

And let me check my notes and count how many characters have died during the 42 sessions of my current campaign.

Counting, this might take a while.

Oh, it is zero.

But you keep complaining about how hard it is to make happen.

So how much of that zero is to your credit?

And if all of it is to your credit, what is the problem: you're not trying to kill the party and it's not happening. Looks like it's all according to plan and you get to eat someone's potato chip... or drink someone's milkshake--I don't know how the line goes because I don't want to watch that show.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I think that the trouble with all of that bolded bit is that the context matters & that context makes it an unreasonable foot in the door wedge issue assumption that villainizes half the discussion.

I mean, I'm the one who's been "villainized" here. Repeatedly. I've had people explicitly telling me that I'm trying to "destroy" D&D by doing this. Despite saying it in nearly every single post I've written for this thread, I've had two different people now accuse me of wanting to make this a universal rule that everyone is forced to obey, even though I've said over and over and over again that I know it's not for everyone and that it is merely a useful tool for those interested in it.

It's a bit hard to take your claims of "villainiz[ation]" seriously when, y'know, I've already had people doing that to me personally throughout the thread.

There really are not too many scenarios in d&d where a dead PC amounts to make a new PC. Those situations tend to be things like these:

I find there are plenty of such situations. They mostly involve either parties of levels 1-4, or parties starved of resources. And guess what two things 5e DMs absolutely LOVE doing to their parties! No prizes for guessing, I'm afraid the DM isn't allowing any.

Spoiler

• Meatgrinder game with a dcc funnel style of play....
  • and? That is the whole point of such a play style. A player who made a big backstory or heavily invested in a PC joining such a game has missed the point & should put more effort into understanding the table/non-d&d game they are joining going forward. This one can be ignored because the problem is 100% a misunderstanding on the player's part.
• Alice's Low level PC killed during a low level adventure when they or the party lacks funds they are willing to spend on brining Alice's PC back.
  • Alice & the party has likely learned an important lesson in self preservation and there are still generally ways that would allow her PC to be returned such as reaching out to someone at the local church/wealthy questgiver/etc to trade favors like service & longer term repayment after getting a raise dead or similar on credit. With a low level PC this kind of thing is often a bit of handwaving that many GM's will allow simply because it moves things forward & creates a huge possible plot/adventure hook to be used later
• Bob's high level PC dies & the body is an unrecoverable pile of ash or whatever
  • Once again Bob has learned an important lesson in self preservation because giving the cleric a severed & regenerated toe/finger/ear or keeping one safe back at home allows his PC to be returned later. Back when PCs leveled much slower it was reasonably common for parties to get access to spells like regenerate & gather a bunch of fingers or whatever for safe storage.
• Dawn Just joined a one shot & her PC dies but bringing it back would result in derailing the one shot into a full on campaign.
  • Once again... and? It's a one shot, the game's not likely to be significantly impacted if she rolls up a new PC or asks the GM if she can do something like change the name of her PC & be found after/during the next combat. If those options are not acceptable because she's too invested in the PC she brought to a short lived one shot type game it's a problem with her having the wrong expectations or understanding of the term "one shot" & she can do better at bringing the right expectations to future one shots
• Edward in an AL type game where nobody in the party can raise dead or similar.
  • The AL rules have a section about PC's being revived. Pretty much just revive the PC between sessions. IME with running AL twice a week for years that or similar could even be done mid session just because it doesn't really matter within the framework of what AL allows for character development & deviation from the adventure. Pretty sure at least one "season" even had a sidebar about monsters taking a magic item or similar & leaving the assumed dead PC to wake up later with a lighter pack.
• Nina's PC helps with an alchemy experiment & rolls a 1?
  • It hurts... Call Scar?. Talk to the GM after because that's a huge development with lots of possible room for character growth even if it's not the growth that was expected many sessions ago.

Addressing these in order:

• Certainly. I've already said, multiple times, that this isn't for all games nor all gamers. I completely agree that trying to apply this concept and approach to a DCC-style game is foolish! I have said more or less exactly that repeatedly. So...we agree?
• This is exactly when I think it is most relevant, particularly with 5e (regardless of version) where the culture-of-play is utterly obsessed with trapping players in the first two or three levels for as long as humanly possible. (Note, this is from my perspective. I know some, like Lanefan, find it distasteful to be hitting 6th level before more than a year has passed, or whatever.) "Likely learned an important lesson in self preservation" is, frankly, patronizing BS, and I won't dignify it with any further response. Everything you say after that is exactly the effort I've been talking about, so you aren't saying anything that conflicts with my position.
• Once again, patronizing BS. As for the rest? Now you're projecting your playstyle, forcing it onto everyone else. Everyone has to behave like a paranoid mercenary now. Why? Why is it fine for your playstyle to be projected onto everyone ever, but when I merely talk about an alternative approach, now I'm forcing you to play my way?
• A one-shot is not a reasonable place for anything of this nature. I don't disagree with you whatsoever on that point.
• Sooooo....now you're totally comfortable with non-diegetic, unexplained revivals...simply because they occur in the context of AL? I'm sorry, I just don't understand how this is somehow magically okay, but putting in just a little bit of GM effort (to the tune of "reference that there's a powerful cleric and have that cleric have some reason to be positive toward the PCs") for a purely diegetic, story-creating resurrection is somehow a TERRBLE SIN against God and Man.
• Okay, now I'm wondering if you're pulling my leg. "Talk with the GM"? That's literally what I'm talking about! For God's sake, this IS exactly what I mean! Talk with the GM and work something out.

Why did you feel the need to insult me, repeatedly, when...you and I apparently are in full agreement on nearly all of these issues, other than the patronizing "well I guess you learned a Very Valuable Lesson then!" stuff???

 

[Crimson Longinus]

I mean, if we allow "ever" then that's a massively different question. You could have the characters wake up resurrected in a cyberpunk future if you want. I find that sort of argument pretty tedious. If it isn't going to functionally happen in the next, say, month? I think we can reasonably call that "not happening." Certainly, the person who played the dead PC isn't going to be super happy about spending the next "I have no idea how many" weeks waiting for the possibility of a resurrection, yeah? At which point you've already asked them to make a new character anyway, or you've literally just shut them out of the game entirely. Either way, it's equivalent to the character actually being permanently dead, they have to give up what they were playing and either not participate whatsoever, or try to invest in a brand-new character.

Yeah, perfectly understandable. I just wanted to clarify what you meant.

Given the propensity folks have had for casually asking if D&D is really the right fit for "my" side....it seems a little odd that your perspective is that D&D has ever been like that. That is, early D&D, death was in no way rare. It was exceedingly common at most tables. Exceptions existed, but they were exactly that, exceptions. There, death could be quite permanent but it wasn't even remotely rare. With recent editions (meaning, WotC ones), death may or may not be rare but it isn't permanent.

If D&D has never actually offered the combination you desire, why do you look to D&D for that experience?

I don't really care about the history of D&D, whilst I've played the older editions, I was never a huge fan of any of them. I have my issues with 5e, but it is easily the best D&D has ever been. And the combination I want is very easy to achieve in 5e. Characters in 5e (at least past level five or so) are super hard to kill, so that is death being rare already covered, and then I just ban resurrection magic and we're done.

No PCs have actually died in my Dungeon World game. There was one pseudo-death because the player was taking an indefinite hiatus, but after he and I discussed it, he agreed to do something slightly different, not dying but being "taken away" in the style of Enoch or Elijah. When the player did (temporarily) return, the character's development paid off in rather a major way, and I could tell that he was happier with this outcome than he would've been with the character being dead. So...I dunno if that counts, seeing as it wasn't "my HP dropped to 0 and I just died", but rather a purely narrative event. (In this case, using his burgeoning shaman powers to call on the One, the monotheistic deity of the Safiqi religion, for aid in slaying an extremely dangerous spirit. Player had expected this to kill the character; after discussing it, we agreed that the One was more likely to want to teach, assuming lessons could be taught, albeit through intermediaries because They almost never directly intervene in the world.)

Yeah, I think that is rather different situation. I just thinking about your dragon earring setup. Do the players know it is path to potential resurrection? Because sometimes, to some people, such Deus Exes would actually cheapen the narrative if they're suddenly sprung on them. But different people react to these things differently.

One of my negative past gaming experiences was a game where the GM obviously didn't want the characters to die, so they kept contriving reasons for us to survive, even though sensibly we shouldn't have. And it annoyed me so I started to intentionally play my character super recklessly, in attempt to get them killed. (Not most mature approach, but that was long time ago.) In the end, I didn't manage to kill my character, though I don't think it was very long campaign. But to me that was way worse than my character just dying, it destroyed all the tension and made the events seem super artificial. And ultimately made me feel that I had no agency; I was no allowed to fail, so success was meaningless. And it is not an experience I want as player, nor it is an experience I want to provide to my players. And I'm not saying that you're doing this, but I am trying to explain what I want to avoid.

Our opinions are shaped by our past experiences, I think your frequent low level TPKs might have shaped your approach into a different direction.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

But you keep complaining about how hard it is to make happen.

So how much of that zero is to your credit?

And if all of it is to your credit, what is the problem: you're not trying to kill the party and it's not happening. Looks like it's all according to plan and you get to eat someone's potato chip... or drink someone's milkshake--I don't know how the line goes because I don't want to watch that show.

I am not complaining it is hard to kill the PCs. I have sometimes however complained though, that the official (5.0) guidelines are insufficient for challenging the players. That I want the players to feel challenged, that they actually need to play smart, and use tactics and that the fights are engaging and exiting for them doesn't mean that I want to kill the PCs. Killing PCs is not the goal, but it is possible side effect for the content being genuinely challenging.

Like it is more fun to win, if it seemed possible that you could actually lose, that it was actually difficult, that you accomplished something. Perhaps you don't feel that way, but it is hardly a strange sentiment.

Now the ease of resurrection is another matter however. I really dislike comic-book-style revolving deaths door, where no one stays dead, so death becomes meaningless. I don't want to trivialise death, I want it to have the dramatic impact it should have.

 

[prabe]

This is exactly when I think it is most relevant, particularly with 5e (regardless of version) where the culture-of-play is utterly obsessed with trapping players in the first two or three levels for as long as humanly possible.

Y'know, I'm a firm believer both in starting from first level and in getting them to third quickly (my ideal is three sessions, one at first and two at second). That was very much my understanding of the intent, reading the rules and looking at XP tables (though I've never used XP for advancement in 5e). I'm not arguing with you hard, here, just saying that the culture-of-play that's obsessed with trapping PCs at low levels isn't anything close to universal--and is probably mostly limited to playstyles we'd both find ... unpleasant.

 

[Micah Sweet]

So you're saying that death other than "make a new character" (more like "sit tight until we bring your character back') is a suitable consequence, and it's perfectly OK that bringing back dead PCs is so easy in D&D 5e? I'm not particularly inclined to disagree. I think it's easy to read "I want resurrection to be harder/rarer/whateverer" (or "I want PC death to matter") as "I want the players to make new characters more often." I think it's worth pondering how long you expect players to "sit tight" if their characters are even only temporarily dead, though.

If folks still kept multiple PCs active in a campaign, this would be less of an issue.