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

[pemerton]

The term adventure hook is pretty common in gaming parlance. Do you really not know what it means, or is this another trap set to demonstrate problems or hypocrisy with my favored playstyle?

Upthread you posted this:

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.

Given that preference, I would have assumed that you eschew adventure hooks, which are a device for establishing plot, and orienting the characters towards that plot as characters in a story, in the process of going on an adventure.

Hence why I ask you what "adventure hooks" means in your use of the phrase.

There is also no need to be defensive about "your play style" - I'm not asserting anything about it. You are the one, in this thread, making false claims about RPGs you're not familiar with, such as this one about Dungeon World:

Dungeon World character generation, through the playbook system, is literally built on narrative roles.

I pointed out your error in this respect upthread but you didn't respond.

 

[pemerton]

That still doesn't negate my criticism thereof, that hired help is crafted and played by the DM, so character death means you must now abandon the story you wanted to tell and start telling a story written by someone else, but it's an interesting thing to learn regardless.

For what it's worth, there is - in my view, at least - basically no overlap between an approach to RPGing that uses henchmen and hirelings in the classic D&D mould, and an approach in which a player has "a story that they wanted to tell".

The only counterexamples I can think of are, perhaps, Dungeon World and Torchbearer, and I'm not convinced that the way they use hirelings counts as being "in the classic D&D mould".

If part of the goal of someone's RPGing is "to tell a story that they want to tell", then I think they're best served just doing that, not trying to shore up a deficiency in their system - namely, the risk of random and narratively pointless death - by using henchmen or hirelings as a pool of back-up protagonists.

 

[pemerton]

I have never had an issue with most of these apart from character deaths (e.g. CvC/PvP is quite rare at most tables today for a reason), but that doesn't mean they couldn't ever be an issue. I do try to jump in front of any such thing early, but I'm not perfect. That said, these really are at-table issues, not game-design issues

I don't follow this.

Whether a system can support PvP conflict; whether it permits narratively pointless PC death; whether it relies on "adventure hooks" to make the game go; etc - these are all absolutely matters of design.

Contrast, for instance, the design of a few different RPGs:

classic D&D: this does permit narratively pointless PC death; does support PvP conflict but makes it costly (because of the general dependence, for success in classic D&D play, upon cooperation among players and their PCs); and doesn't rely on "adventure hooks" beyond the players' knowledge of where their PCs can find a dungeon to explore and loot;

RPGing in the DL-ish/AP-ish style: this does permit narratively pointless PC death (but often has system padding to reduce its incidence, and/or encourages the GM to suspend the rules to avoid it); is generally hostile to PvP (although the rules on their face may permit it); and relies heavily on adventure hooks;

Burning Wheel or Dungeon World: these systems, via their rules for framing and consequences, tend to preclude narratively pointless PC death; they do permit PvP; they don't rely on adventure hooks, because they use quite different devices to make play "go".​

 

[Ulorian - Agent of Chaos]

The inability to get 100% verisimilitude does not mean that striving for as much verisimilitude as you can get is pointless. Story Now isn't fun for me, but you don't see me attacking the playstyle.

You seem to be arguing against a point I wasn't trying to make.

You'll notice that I did say despite me feeling that playstyle being a slog i.e. the effort and mental gymnastics not being worth the payoff, I respect the fact that there are folks who think that it's enjoyable for them.

tldr; I get why you like it. I respect that. I don't like it though. All good?

 

[CreamCloud0]

The term adventure hook is pretty common in gaming parlance. Do you really not know what it means, or is this another trap set to demonstrate problems or hypocrisy with my favored playstyle?

i think that was the more the philosophical-conceptual 'what really defines one?' question of 'what is an adventure hook' than 'i haven't heard of the term before'

 

[Micah Sweet]

While 100% may not be possible, that's not the same as saying that one should definitely settle for only 50%; it simply means that there will be some "willing suspension of disbelief", to use what I hope is an acceptable phrase.

But it does mean that a maximalist attitude toward verisimilitude, especially if that maximalism makes demands that affect the game design that applies to everyone, must make a case for why it should be that we should pursue 99.9999% as opposed to 90% or 99% or 99.9% or whatever. And that, @Micah Sweet , is where the argument in your most recent post breaks down. You are not exclusively advocating for being allowed to play your way while others play theirs, with no cost to anyone; you have many times places very strong demands on what the system itself must do or not do inherently, under all circumstances, which is a restriction on what others can do, experience, achieve, etc.

Again, this does not and cannot mean that you should just accept whatever pittance of verisimilitude you can get. That would be incredibly insulting to you. You very much should advocate for your interests! But in that advocacy, if you're going to expect others to be mindful of the cost to your fun because of their requests (or demands, or whatever else), then the same applies in the other direction. There may be some few things—I sincerely hope it is very few—where you may be asked accept that the massive cost to them for adding/removing something is more harmful than a minor cost to you for not doing so.

And, to be clear, I understand that I have made some strong demands here for cases when I'm a player. I have never had an issue with most of these apart from character deaths (e.g. CvC/PvP is quite rare at most tables today for a reason), but that doesn't mean they couldn't ever be an issue. I do try to jump in front of any such thing early, but I'm not perfect. That said, these really are at-table issues, not game-design issues, and none of the "fixes" I've mentioned require anything in the rules themselves to implement.

Fair enough. I am aware that a game designed with an eye toward my preferences will likely work against some of the preferences of some others. To me that is an indicator that one or both sides (should such folks find themselves at the same table) need to compromise to some degree to continue having fun playing together. This can involve houseruling, playing a different game than one or both would prefer, or just, "sucking it up" and trying to make the best of it.

I see no problem with anyone advocating for their preferences in gaming, even if the opportunity cost is that the play becomes less facilitative of the preferences of others. Sometimes you can't have everything all at once. What I do see as a potential issue, however, is choosing to support your preference by disparaging the preferences of others. If you like narrativism or Story Now, for example, why speak against other playstyles? Can't you just state your dislike simply if needed and move on to what type of play you do like?

 

[Micah Sweet]

You seem to be arguing against a point I wasn't trying to make.

You'll notice that I did say despite me feeling that playstyle being a slog i.e. the effort and mental gymnastics not being worth the payoff, I respect the fact that there are folks who think that it's enjoyable for them.

tldr; I get why you like it. I respect that. I don't like it though. All good?

All good. I vastly prefer the tldr version, however, as the expurgated version sounds like it's taking jabs and making sweeping statements that express more than your personal feelings on the matter.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Upthread you posted this:
Given that preference, I would have assumed that you eschew adventure hooks, which are a device for establishing plot, and orienting the characters towards that plot as characters in a story, in the process of going on an adventure.

Hence why I ask you what "adventure hooks" means in your use of the phrase.

There is also no need to be defensive about "your play style" - I'm not asserting anything about it. You are the one, in this thread, making false claims about RPGs you're not familiar with, such as this one about Dungeon World:
I pointed out your error in this respect upthread but you didn't respond.

If you feel differently about the playbook system, more power to you. You clearly have more experience with PBtA, so I'm sure you're right. But I've looked over several of those books, and played two PBtA games, and from my perspective the playbooks still read very strongly as narrative roles with rules attached. The fact that you are discouraged from having two players with the same playbook supports this to my mind.

Regarding adventure hooks, they are in-setting suggestions for activities our spotlighted PCs might want to undertake. Every hook is an actual situation in the setting that will progress and/or resolve whether or not the players choose to get their PCs involved. If they don't, that fine; the PCs can still do whatever they want in the setting. The hook is not the plot, it is a thing happening in the world that the players can choose to have their PCs interact with (or not) as they explore the setting.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Fair enough. I am aware that a game designed with an eye toward my preferences will likely work against some of the preferences of some others. To me that is an indicator that one or both sides (should such folks find themselves at the same table) need to compromise to some degree to continue having fun playing together. This can involve houseruling, playing a different game than one or both would prefer, or just, "sucking it up" and trying to make the best of it.

I see no problem with anyone advocating for their preferences in gaming, even if the opportunity cost is that the play becomes less facilitative of the preferences of others. Sometimes you can't have everything all at once. What I do see as a potential issue, however, is choosing to support your preference by disparaging the preferences of others. If you like narrativism or Story Now, for example, why speak against other playstyles? Can't you just state your dislike simply if needed and move on to what type of play you do like?

To the best of my knowledge, I haven't spoken against any style during this thread. I may have done so in other threads, for other topics. But I have tried quite hard to position my stuff as "this is an option" not "this is better than everything else".

I have, however, had numerous people tell me that my approach is:

1. Destructive to the game in its entirety (not in this thread, but in previous ones)
2. "Automatic wins" for the players, where they do absolutely nothing and yet succeed perfectly 100% of the time
3. Mere "story time" with no gameplay and no challenge
4. Incapable of producing any stakes whatsoever
5. Even if it can produce stakes, none of them could ever have gameplay impact
6. Even if it can produce gameplay-impacting stakes, none of them are as significant or universal as character death

And probably a few other blatant insults besides that I've forgotten about already (which is really a good thing overall.) If you want to complain about someone belittling someone else's style rather than promoting the benefits of theirs, you might want to start with the people telling me that my game must be a boring snooze-fest where the players automatically win instantly, forever, rather than the rather mild claims I have made, which boil down mostly to "so far from finding random-etc. PC deaths exciting or motivating, I find them dull and disheartening, so I try to address this, with as close as possible to diegetic means."

If I have criticized other styles, it has only been in response to being told some rather nasty things about what my game must be like.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I don't follow this.

Whether a system can support PvP conflict; whether it permits narratively pointless PC death; whether it relies on "adventure hooks" to make the game go; etc - these are all absolutely matters of design.

I was speaking of two different things. On the one hand, my personal extreme dislike of PvP, which rarely comes up. On the other, my issues with "out of the blue" character deaths (random, permanent, irrevocable). Most of my expectations--some might call them "demands"--for a game are ones that are almost never a problem. Random, permanent, irrevocable character deaths are just about the only one that is liable to come up, and that one issue, I have solutions for (as a DM, at least) which do not rely on any particular part of the design of the system. I could implement this as easily in Shadowrun or Werewolf: the Apocalypse as I do in Dungeon World.