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

[KYRON45]

You're typing to find out what happens?

The one constant in any online forum is that nothing ever happens. Thing just go round and round, get redefined, misinterpreted and misunderstood. The goal posts get moved, the premise changes and people get angry....but nothing ever really happens.

 

[CreamCloud0]

Going to agree with Micah on this, the disagreement is over approaching the game with an outlook of the party I am part of as OUR story focus vrs "MyCharecter as MY story focus.

That first outlook is s good & healthy approach to a collaborative team game for all the reasons anyone ever said "there's no I in team". Battlestar Galactica (remake) leverage firefly and many others provide good examples of these kinds of stories

The second outlook there demotes everyone else to a role like "my sidekicks" and that's not particularly healthy when multiple characters are doing the same. The Witcher Dr who most terminator movies and others make good examples of this kind of story. It's not until this second style hits multiple concurrent largely isolated but intertwined stories like game of thrones to get back to multiple main characters and a story about the world itself rather than a party, but that's really a scale that is far too big for a game of d&d

i didn't think micah was even discussing party story focus vs character story focus (unless it was part of a different conversation thread that i was paying less attention to), but rather what qualifies something to be defined as a story in the first place.

but why can't both story focuses be present at once? the story of the party and the stories of all the individual members of that party who have their own subplots going on, individual threads doesn't have to turn things into 'Me, the protagonist, oh and those other guys are here too', the party is part of a mercenary company all hired to stop a doomsday cult, but in the meantime the cleric wants to investigate the dubious history of their church, the rogue is an estranged noble looking to earn their way back into their family's good graces and the artificer is trying to track down a set of magical relics.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Yea, I would agree with that definition. Since I can conceive of a future individual being able to recount my present actions as their past, thus making it into a "story", it doesn't feel incoherent for me to say I feel like "I'm in the middle of my story".

Everything that IS happening is just someone else's historical narrative.

And my stance is that none of that becomes narrative until someone has a chance to look at at least a portion of it after the fact. How small a portion that has to be is more nitpicky than I care to get into.

 

[Micah Sweet]

What is the threshold between what is currently happening and when that moment qualifies as a story?
The only reason I play D&D is the story. The rules are just ancillary. So like i said...i don't understand the point of of view.
Which isn't to say I disagree...i just don't understand.

For me the threshold is when someone has the opportunity to look back and make sense of it. Apply some coherence to the events.

 

[Micah Sweet]

i didn't think micah was even discussing party story focus vs character story focus (unless it was part of a different conversation thread that i was paying less attention to), but rather what qualifies something to be defined as a story in the first place.

but why can't both story focuses be present at once? the story of the party and the stories of all the individual members of that party who have their own subplots going on, individual threads doesn't have to turn things into 'Me, the protagonist, oh and those other guys are here too', the party is part of a mercenary company all hired to stop a doomsday cult, but in the meantime the cleric wants to investigate the dubious history of their church, the rogue is an estranged noble looking to earn their way back into their family's good graces and the artificer is trying to track down a set of magical relics.

You are correct. I am talking about whether or not active play at the table is telling a story. I maintain that it is not, but if you use a different definition of what story means then the perspectives of those who disagree with me make plenty of sense.

 

[pemerton]

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.

Yes, I think everyone participating in this thread is aware of this.

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.

I don't understand what it means for "seeing the game" one way, or another way, to be more or less realistic. Like, it's not more realistic to look at something from its left rather than its right.

What I want is to explore and interact with a world through my PC that feels as real as possible

And for some RPGers, the sort of character you play is utterly unrealistic, because basically a self-insert rather than a genuine inhabitant of the world you are notionally exploring.

I want to think about my character's narrative role in that world as little as possible

And this is a red herring. I conjecture that most RPGers want to think about their character's narrative role in the world as little as possible. And Dungeon World (just to name the game that you and @EzekielRaiden are discussing) certainly doesn't require this of the players. All the players have to think about is their PCs' beliefs, memories, hopes, and actions.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Yes, I think everyone participating in this thread is aware of this.

I don't understand what it means for "seeing the game" one way, or another way, to be more or less realistic. Like, it's not more realistic to look at something from its left rather than its right.

And for some RPGers, the sort of character you play is utterly unrealistic, because basically a self-insert rather than a genuine inhabitant of the world you are notionally exploring.

And this is a red herring. I conjecture that most RPGers want to think about their character's narrative role in the world as little as possible. And Dungeon World (just to name the game that you and @EzekielRaiden are discussing) certainly doesn't require this of the players. All the players have to think about is their PCs' beliefs, memories, hopes, and actions.

Dungeon World character generation, through the playbook system, is literally built on narrative roles. I don't see how you square with claiming otherwise.

 

[pemerton]

On story in RPGing.

I know three ways to talk about it - maybe there are more.

(1) After play occurs, someone recounts it (by talking, by writing notes, whatever). Some of these "stories" will be very tedious. Some will reduce tedium by eliding actual events that occurred during play (eg a write-up of a combat that took twenty minutes of play to resolve might elide the round-by-round events of attack, damage, hp depletion etc and just describe a framing and an outcome).

(2) Before play occurs, someone (typically the GM, or an author whose work the GM buys) writes a rough outline of anticipated events. Play consists of the players working through those events. DL is a famous example, Most contemporary D&D modules seem to be a version of this.

(3) The game system - its mechanics, governing principles, etc - are designed so that, when the game participants follow those rules and principles in their play, the fictional events that unfold exhibit properties that are admired in other fictional forms - eg there is theme, rising action, crisis and resolution , etc. These days Apocalypse World and its derivatives are the best-known RPGs designed in this fashion, but there are many others too, including many that predate AW.


Games that support approach (3) do not need to include rules or principles that require players, or the GM, to think about the unfolding events "as a story". But typically they will need rules or principles that require the GM to think about the particular characters or situations from the perspective of theme/premise/crisis/dramatic need.

 

[pemerton]

Dungeon World character generation, through the playbook system, is literally built on narrative roles. I don't see how you square with claiming otherwise.

No it's not. It's built on classes, just like D&D.

When I build and played my DW paladin, I chose the abilities that would allow me to realise my character, just as I would in D&D. I also chose clerical spell-casting as my 2nd level ability, because it the ability is stronger the sooner that you take it!

 

[pemerton]

What do you mean by "hive mind solidarity"?

I mean the sort of unity of goal and of action that is characteristic of D&D party play.