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

[CreamCloud0]

In what way does that make them protagonists in a story?

by being the main influential forces that we follow in the events of the story

Seems to me that the PCs are just people going through the world and making choices based on what they find there.

isn't that basically what all stories boil down to being?

That isn't a story until someone puts it together after the fact and tells it.

why though? what's really the difference between sessions of a TTRPG and any other ongoing media besides the fact that some narrative fat might be trimmed, or those 'based on real events' stories, those were still stories as they were happening and before someone prettied it up for a half hour block of programming.

doesn't it, by your logic, become a story immediately after a session ends and the players start recounting what happened? it doesn't even need the session to end really, really, the GM's introductory 'you all meet in a tavern' counts as a story by those qualifiers, an incredibly short and basic one perhaps but they're still recounting events and telling the players of them.

 

[pemerton]

Why not just sit around and tell each other a story that each gets to add to without dice?

"An Ogre leaps out and attacks the group!"
"My Ranger fires an arrow at it and hits in the eye!"
"It screams and become enraged."
"My Wizard casts a Fire Bolt and burns his bottom!"
"You guys are doing great! The Ogre hops around patting his singed butt!"
"My Fighter runs over and gives an overhand chop with my axe!"
"The Ogre takes the blow and sags to his knees!"
"My cleric says a blessing before ending the evil Ogres rampage."
"That was great guys and very scary! Now, you are still in the dungeon room!"
"I look for any hidden items!"
"You find a magic potion! It can cure wounds!"
"Lucky, good thing I said I looked for hidden items."
"I look for a hidden door!"
"You don't one, but the window does open onto a terrace."

I mean that would move so much faster and you can all tell a great story together. Why let random dice get in the way?

Because you want things that you wouldn't simply author in collaboration with your friends? This has nothing to do with whether or not death is on the line.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

You can. GM controls the world, and they can make anything happen, and a skilled GM can use vague foreshadowing and illusionism to make contrivances seem less contrived.

But I don't want to, at least not for big stakes. Because as GM, I too am there to "play to find out," not to railroad the PCs into safety. I am a softie, I have a bit hard time having bad things to happen, even though I feel real peril and feeling of genuine challenge might require it. And here having things predetermined and actually following the rules helps. I set the initial conditions, but then I just play the world with integrity and follow the what the rules say. Then the players do what they want, and results will be what they will be. We all will play to find out.

Illusionism requires an illusion--a deception masquerading as what is, versus what actually is.

I am just as opposed to illusionism as I am to fudging and other such manipulative GMing tools. That's why I build the diegetic solutions I do.

I'm not really sure how having things "predetermined" helps? That would seem to be the opposite of both having real challenge and of playing to find out. Perhaps I'm misunderstanding where "predetermined" is being applied?

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Illusionism requires an illusion--a deception masquerading as what is, versus what actually is.

I am just as opposed to illusionism as I am to fudging and other such manipulative GMing tools. That's why I build the diegetic solutions I do.

You're not gonna like this, but more you rely on malleability of the fiction, on "no myth," closer to illusionism you are. Like yeah, you may have set up some vague foreshadowing about dragon earrings to later justify deus exing things, but less well defined those things are closer we are in the situation where the GM just makes up whatever to direct the play into the direction they want.

I'm not really sure how having things "predetermined" helps? That would seem to be the opposite of both having real challenge and of playing to find out. Perhaps I'm misunderstanding where "predetermined" is being applied?

Because having things predefined binds the GM. The GM has less freedom to affect the direction of the play once things get going. So it is not just the GM deciding what is and what happens, the players interaction with the fixed starting position and the rules determine the outcome. Like relating to character death, I as GM do not know beforehand whether th PCs will survive a fight, the outcome will be a surprise to me as well.

 

[pemerton]

You're not gonna like this, but more you rely on malleability of the fiction, on "no myth," closer to illusionism you are. Like yeah, you may have set up some vague foreshadowing about dragon earrings to later justify deus exing things, but less well defined those things are closer we are in the situation where the GM just makes up whatever to direct the play into the direction they want.

This needn't be true even in D&D. It's certainly not a true general proposition about RPGing.

Because having things predefined binds the GM.

Prep is not the only way to bind the GM. One other possibility (not the only one) is mechanics. To wit:

I as GM do not know beforehand whether th PCs will survive a fight, the outcome will be a surprise to me as well.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

This needn't be true even in D&D. It's certainly not a true general proposition about RPGing.

Prep is not the only way to bind the GM. One other possibility (not the only one) is mechanics. To wit:

Sure. But D&D is not a game where the mechanics are really built to bind the GM's narrative authority. If one wants to avoid railroading, I think low-myth pairs better with games that have far clearer mechanical constraints on how the GM can fill in the myth than D&D does.

 

[pemerton]

That second thing isn't unrealistic. You just have to make the point of hiring or otherwise recruiting plausible henchmen or allies. Plenty of societies and cultures have a wandering or at least uncommitted portion of the population, especially in the kind of urban areas such recruiting is most likely to take place. I don't see anything unrealistic about that.

Wandering bands of mercenaries with the hive-mind solidarity that is implied by default D&D party play is, to my mind, completely unrealistic.

 

[Micah Sweet]

by being the main influential forces that we follow in the events of the story

isn't that basically what all stories boil down to being?

why though? what's really the difference between sessions of a TTRPG and any other ongoing media besides the fact that some narrative fat might be trimmed, or those 'based on real events' stories, those were still stories as they were happening and before someone prettied it up for a half hour block of programming.

doesn't it, by your logic, become a story immediately after a session ends and the players start recounting what happened? it doesn't even need the session to end really, really, the GM's introductory 'you all meet in a tavern' counts as a story by those qualifiers, an incredibly short and basic one perhaps but they're still recounting events and telling the players of them.

Break any argument down into small enough pieces and it ceases to make sense. You are splitting hydrogen and oxygen and then claiming we don't have water. My preference is to see the campaign as an exploration of the setting by the players through their PCs, not as a story with protagonists and a plot. Seeing the game that way feels less realistic and immersive to me, because as a PC I don't want to have any consideration about "telling my character's story", and as the DM I don't want that from the players. What I want is to explore and interact with a world through my PC that feels as real as possible, and I want to think about my character's narrative role in that world as little as possible, because that is a distraction that takes me out of play.

Seriously, is there a reason my chosen playstyle is getting so much pushback here? Am I responding in kind to what you like somehow?

 

[Micah Sweet]

Wandering bands of mercenaries with the hive-mind solidarity that is implied by default D&D party play is, to my mind, completely unrealistic.

What do you mean by "hive mind solidarity"?

 

[dave2008]

Break any argument down into small enough pieces and it ceases to make sense. You are splitting hydrogen and oxygen and then claiming we don't have water. My preference is to see the campaign as an exploration of the setting by the players through their PCs, not as a story with protagonists and a plot. Seeing the game that way feels less realistic and immersive to me, because as a PC I don't want to have any consideration about "telling my character's story", and as the DM I don't want that from the players. What I want is to explore and interact with a world through my PC that feels as real as possible, and I want to think about my character's narrative role in that world as little as possible, because that is a distraction that takes me out of play.

Seriously, is there a reason my chosen playstyle is getting so much pushback here? Am I responding in kind to what you like somehow?

I have a similar playstyle to what you describe:

1. DM makes the world/setting (I do this with my players to some extent)
2. PCs explore that world
3. DM reacts to the PCs exploring the world (based on DM's interpretation of the natural reaction of the settings environment and occupants)

I can't speak for others; however, where I feel the need to pushback ever so slightly is the idea that your are not creating a story when exploring my setting. I may not be thinking about it as story, my character's story, or concerning myself with the narrative roles of the characters, but that doesn't mean we, as a group, are not creating a story. Whether we realize it or not, or think of it that way or not, we are, IMO, creating a story.

Though, from my perspective everything is a story. For example, I am going to go live the story of taking my dog out to the bathroom on a rainy morning in Seattle. Who knows to what adventures that will lead - possibly a donut!