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

[Gorg]

Just for fun, I'm going to give a non-poll answering answer!

I've played on and off since B/X, and been involved in a lot of games, DM'd others, and played with a bunch of people, DM's. So my answer is ?? No idea!

I'd prefer something in between the "keep your d6"s warmed up- you're gonna need them!" meat grinder that First edition AD&D was, and the immortal UBER characters that developed in other, later campaigns, lol.

Say, as often as the story needs it. Or maybe until the more foolish players learn, or leave the table, lol. (yep, we've played with some real doozies. My friend/DM is still horribly traumatized by the actions of some, judging by his new campaign...)

That said, so far 5E seems to have hit a fairly sweet spot. Beginning characters are no longer so weak and frail, that an orc letting a bad one fly kills half the party, and Wizards are no longer totally useless at low levels. They have some staying power- so players can actually learn to enjoy playing them.

Otoh, the usual suspects you encounter at low levels also can do good work. While it's not quite as deadly, it's entirely possible to assume room temperature, if you act foolishly, roll badly- or forget that you CAN retreat, and don't HAVE to fight everything you meet to the death, lol. It can be as tough- or as easy- as your group wants it to be.

I don't recall TOO many character deaths- that didn't involve PVP; sheer stoopid; or monumentally bad luck with rolls. Esp now that the oh-so-popular save or die effects have largely been removed, and the new death rules put in place. Perhaps my DM simply fudged a bit- dropping you to single digit HP, instead of DED, as the damage die actually said.

I seem to recall a memorable session with some slightly younger players, where my fighter got oneshotted, by a goblin in The Caves of Chaos. Shortly thereafter, we encountered a wild haired/wild eyed dwarf wandering around banging a drum, and shouting RESURRECTIONS!!! GET YOUR RESURRECTIONS HERE!!! Cost just about every dime we had, but my fighter got Raised! He was henceforth known as Splat! Same game also saw him shatter his sword on a natural 1 roll. He had to resort to using iron spikes as weapons till he could snag another weapon from a dead enemy. (we thought of them as being like railroad spikes, not pitons) It was all for the sake of having fun.

That fighter ended up being retired at 15th level or so, when my buddy moved to Florida for a few years... He eventually became one of my all-time favorites to play. (2e non lethal unarmed combat rules were FUN, for tavern brawls)

 

[Chaosmancer]

You assume there's anyone actually doing that. As @Chaosmancer said, many players simply think 1st level is just the place you always start. And many DMs have no interest in changing their minds about 1st level being the place you start, so it creates a self-perpetuating cycle.

People do lots of things not because it makes them happy, but because it's just "what one does." That doesn't mean they hate it either! It just means that you cannot say, "Ah, yes, people do X, therefore people like X."

That kind of thinking leads to all sorts of really, really wrong conclusions.

Women must not want pockets, since they keep buying clothes that don't have pockets! I guess women like not having pockets! (Spoiler alert: Every woman I've ever spoken to about this issue hates the fact that real, functional pockets are so hard to find in women's clothing. Yet for some reason, this hasn't changed, across my entire life. Why? Aren't there companies out there who could make so much money if they would just make women's clothes with actual pockets? And yet....)

Funny side-tangent.

No one knows precisely why women's clothing stopped having pockets (it used to!) but one very popular theory is that it is because of the French Revolution.

Poorer people (men and women) would have purses and similiar items to carry their things. Only the noble women had clothes with pockets, because they were harder to make, and therefore more expensive. Then, with the revolution you didn't want to appear to LIKE the nobles and the things they had... so no more women's pockets. (Men's pockets were exempt, I don't remember the reasoning. Probablt because poor men's pants had pockets more often than poor women's dresses)

So yeah, blame the French Revolution!

 

[Chaosmancer]

A year to get to 4th level is slightly fast by our standards. That said, that you-as-player find it boring and frustrating tells me you're in it - at least to some extent - specifically for the levelling and power-ups rather than for the enjoyment of in-the-moment play regardless of character level.

Tells you nothing of the sort. You are assuming and putting words in people's mouths. A year to get to level 4, if meeting weekly, is about 15 sessions per level. I don't care how much I love the moment-by-moment play, I'm going to get bored if I don't get ANY new tricks that I can pull in 15 sessions.

That isn't because I'm in the game for power-ups, but because I want to feel like forward progress is being made. And, also, I would like yo get to higher levels, and each level tends to take longer. And I can count on one hand the number of games I've been in that lasted more than a single year.

 

[Chaosmancer]

I feel like if you are advertising running a 5e game at all you need to specify any deviations from BOG-standard AotC D&D front and center, no matter how small and minor you think they are. Folks IME seem quite skiddish regarding a potential bait and switch.

Did you read my post?

I DID advertise it. And then they still were shocked and kept asking, one person even said "we are starting at level 1 right?" when I advertised it as a level 3 game.

That was... the entire point of my post.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Just for fun, I'm going to give a non-poll answering answer!

I've played on and off since B/X, and been involved in a lot of games, DM'd others, and played with a bunch of people, DM's. So my answer is ?? No idea!

I'd prefer something in between the "keep your d6"s warmed up- you're gonna need them!" meat grinder that First edition AD&D was, and the immortal UBER characters that developed in other, later campaigns, lol.

Say, as often as the story needs it. Or maybe until the more foolish players learn, or leave the table, lol. (yep, we've played with some real doozies. My friend/DM is still horribly traumatized by the actions of some, judging by his new campaign...)

That said, so far 5E seems to have hit a fairly sweet spot. Beginning characters are no longer so weak and frail, that an orc letting a bad one fly kills half the party, and Wizards are no longer totally useless at low levels. They have some staying power- so players can actually learn to enjoy playing them.

Otoh, the usual suspects you encounter at low levels also can do good work. While it's not quite as deadly, it's entirely possible to assume room temperature, if you act foolishly, roll badly- or forget that you CAN retreat, and don't HAVE to fight everything you meet to the death, lol. It can be as tough- or as easy- as your group wants it to be.

I don't recall TOO many character deaths- that didn't involve PVP; sheer stoopid; or monumentally bad luck with rolls. Esp now that the oh-so-popular save or die effects have largely been removed, and the new death rules put in place. Perhaps my DM simply fudged a bit- dropping you to single digit HP, instead of DED, as the damage die actually said.

I seem to recall a memorable session with some slightly younger players, where my fighter got oneshotted, by a goblin in The Caves of Chaos. Shortly thereafter, we encountered a wild haired/wild eyed dwarf wandering around banging a drum, and shouting RESURRECTIONS!!! GET YOUR RESURRECTIONS HERE!!! Cost just about every dime we had, but my fighter got Raised! He was henceforth known as Splat! Same game also saw him shatter his sword on a natural 1 roll. He had to resort to using iron spikes as weapons till he could snag another weapon from a dead enemy. (we thought of them as being like railroad spikes, not pitons) It was all for the sake of having fun.

That fighter ended up being retired at 15th level or so, when my buddy moved to Florida for a few years... He eventually became one of my all-time favorites to play. (2e non lethal unarmed combat rules were FUN, for tavern brawls)

I'm glad you have fun with the way you want to play, but I want to express my frustration yet again with people's choice of wording.

Five times out of eight examples. That's how many times you either directly, or indirectly, stated that character's die because the PCs are stupid/idiots/ect. Out of the remaining three, two of them are you acknowledging that luck can play a roll.

And I find this deeply, deeply frustrating, because for all your blithe comments about stupid decisions, you don't actually clarify what that means. Sure, I'm all for character death if the PC pulls out a wooden spoon, declares themselves the Chosen of Gork and charges an ancient dragon. Okay, fine. Deserved death. But... not retreating? One fight I remember from some years ago had our party defending a young child from some deadly fey that were attempting to kill her. Could we have retreated? Sure... if we were willing to let the child die. But my character was a protector of the people, so that didn't really fly with them. They weren't going to allow a child to be murdered in cold blood. Was that stupid?

That particular game comes to mind, because the DM decided to have the NPCs play games with our characters. We were there to rescue the town, and were put on duty defending the town walls. We were attacked by an enemy we were told to expect, but they didn't tell us what the enemy could do. My character was like "why didn't you tell us about this!" and got the response "You didn't ask". So later, they specifically asked about a different monster we were being told to hunt for a test. A test, to prove we were reliable enough to keep protecting the town. And the NPC lied to my character about what the monster could do, resulting in serious injury, and when I confronted them, they admitted they lied just to mess with us. "It was a joke".

I'm sure to that DM, many of the things my character cared about were stupid, because they couldn't seem to understand why a character would want to save lives instead of take reckless risks for laughs and gold.

And so, I just keep looking at these declarations of "well, death happens if you act like an idiot" and I have to wonder.... No one in your games stands up for what they believe in? No one puts their faith and their life on the line for what is right? No one heads into danger to save the innocent? I've seen all of these things called "stupid" behavior, but the Player isn't being stupid. They are being heroic. They are embodying the archetype of their character. And frankly, I think that should be rewarded more often than it should be punished.

I like a "stupid" paladin who will decry an evil king as being unfit to rule, far more than I like the "smart" Fighter who decides to keep his head down, let his friend be killed, and then wonders if the evil king is hiring mercenaries for premium prices.

 

[Lanefan]

Tells you nothing of the sort. You are assuming and putting words in people's mouths. A year to get to level 4, if meeting weekly, is about 15 sessions per level. I don't care how much I love the moment-by-moment play, I'm going to get bored if I don't get ANY new tricks that I can pull in 15 sessions.

Fair enough.

One of my specific goals is to allow for the campaign to last an indefinite* length of time, and one of the primary things that causes campaigns to end earlier than they otherwise might is that the character levels get beyond what the system can reasonably handle (in 1e this was about 10th-12th level, in the WotC editions it's at or near "capstone" level). And so, slowing down advancement by any number of means** is a useful thing for me to do.

Current result in the 1e-adjacent system I run: 16+ years (and counting), over 1080 sessions (and counting), but as yet no PCs of 12th or higher level and only one at 11th. The party I'm running right now range from 7th to 9th.

* - well, indefinite other than I-as-DM will die sooner or (preferably!) later.
** - including slow advancement, cycling through different interconnected parties and characters, having level drain as a known (if uncommon) thing, having new or replacement characters come in at a lower level than the current party average, and some other tricks.

That isn't because I'm in the game for power-ups, but because I want to feel like forward progress is being made.

Again fair, but progress can come via wealth and items and in-game benefits as well as via levels.

Also, in theory the amount of mechanical character progress from any one level to the next should - assuming good design - be about the same; meaning roughly the same degree of added benefit should accrue when bumping from 1st to 2nd as when bumping from 12th to 13th. Therefore it makes no sense in this regard to have 1st and 2nd levels go by so fast.

And, also, I would like yo get to higher levels, and each level tends to take longer. And I can count on one hand the number of games I've been in that lasted more than a single year.

The last is where your problem arises. My experience has been that campaigns either last less than a few months or for ten-plus years, and I've seen (and run) about-equal numbers of each.

 

[Lanefan]

And I find this deeply, deeply frustrating, because for all your blithe comments about stupid decisions, you don't actually clarify what that means. Sure, I'm all for character death if the PC pulls out a wooden spoon, declares themselves the Chosen of Gork and charges an ancient dragon. Okay, fine. Deserved death. But... not retreating? One fight I remember from some years ago had our party defending a young child from some deadly fey that were attempting to kill her. Could we have retreated? Sure... if we were willing to let the child die. But my character was a protector of the people, so that didn't really fly with them. They weren't going to allow a child to be murdered in cold blood. Was that stupid?

Maybe.

Depending on your level and-or resources, and on whether the DM was willing to allow you to think outside the box, another option could have been in play, namely to retreat in the moment and then do two things:

1. Come back later with more people and bigger guns and wipe those fey off the face of the planet, and
2. Using a Wish, True Resurrection, or similar, bring the child back to life (and if possible, erase its memories of that whole incident!); paid for if needed with the loot you took off the fey you just killed.

That particular game comes to mind, because the DM decided to have the NPCs play games with our characters. We were there to rescue the town, and were put on duty defending the town walls. We were attacked by an enemy we were told to expect, but they didn't tell us what the enemy could do. My character was like "why didn't you tell us about this!" and got the response "You didn't ask". So later, they specifically asked about a different monster we were being told to hunt for a test. A test, to prove we were reliable enough to keep protecting the town. And the NPC lied to my character about what the monster could do, resulting in serious injury, and when I confronted them, they admitted they lied just to mess with us. "It was a joke".

This sounds like flat-out bad DMing.

I'm sure to that DM, many of the things my character cared about were stupid, because they couldn't seem to understand why a character would want to save lives instead of take reckless risks for laughs and gold.

This, though? It's on the DM to let you play your characters as you will, even if said DM doesn't understand or agree with your (in or out of character) motivations for so doing.

I mean, I love it when characters take reckless risks for laughs and gold. More, please! But if you players want to save lives instead then so be it; it;s your choice, and if doing so costs your characters their lives (which taking those reckless risks could just as easily have done) then so be that too.

And so, I just keep looking at these declarations of "well, death happens if you act like an idiot" and I have to wonder.... No one in your games stands up for what they believe in? No one puts their faith and their life on the line for what is right? No one heads into danger to save the innocent? I've seen all of these things called "stupid" behavior, but the Player isn't being stupid. They are being heroic. They are embodying the archetype of their character. And frankly, I think that should be rewarded more often than it should be punished.

I sort of agree with this, in that I'd like to see the high-risk play (when successful) be rewarded more than the lower-risk play, regardless of why that play is being made, because otherwise there isn't much incentive to do anything other than the safe boring routine thing.

An example from two nights ago: our party was fighting a bunch of very tough foes in a dungeon's "boss battle". The boss was a massive great frog-like thing, big enough to swallow people whole on a whim. We put what seemed like boatloads of damage into it but it wasn't having much if any effect, so one of our Fighters decided to try something rash: he intentionally jumped into the frog's mouth and let himself be swallowed so he could chop it up from the inside. And, somewhat amazingly, he pulled it off: the Fighter survived the stomach acid just long enough to kill it, then got hauled out before dying.

High risk action.

I'll leave the opinions on whether that Fighter should get a higher reward to others as I have a conflict of interest: the Fighter who did this was Lanefan, my PC.

I like a "stupid" paladin who will decry an evil king as being unfit to rule, far more than I like the "smart" Fighter who decides to keep his head down, let his friend be killed, and then wonders if the evil king is hiring mercenaries for premium prices.

I'm fine with both of those characters, other than (sometimes) the "let his friend be killed" part. Sometimes when a character's going to die anyway there's no point in sticking around so two characters can die instead; but often it can be a choice of leaving one character to die or sticking around and having nobody die, and those are the ones that hack me off.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

That seems a pretty extreme stance to me, but I don't live your experience.

The point was not to take an extreme stance; it was simply to say that if we were already in a paradigm of extreme...let's call it "DM Latitude", then (very nearly) any change at all would necessarily move away from it. I very much believe that 5.0 went dramatically overboard in pushing the DM-above-all, of treating the player as a mere witness or present only at the intense sufferance of the DM.

Remember that in the wake of 5.0's publication, we really did have a year or two of people on this very forum would respond to every single question--literally every single one--about how the rules work with, "<information> ...unless your DM says otherwise." Because that was the eggshell-fragile presentation of the rules, that was how people understood 5.0 when it was fresh. After a couple of years of that song and dance, we all kind of collectively got over it and realized that treating the rules as a diaphanous nothing wasn't super productive, but the text remained where it was in 2014, as text is so stubbornly wont to do.

So...yeah. I really do believe 5.0 went massively overboard in positioning the DM as absolute, unimpeachable, unquestionable dictator, which the players must meekly submit to under all circumstances. So...anything other than actually saying that explicitly outright would be stepping away from it, to one degree or another. I certainly grant that 5.5e is consciously stepping back from that overwhelming "the DM is absolutely everything, and you the player better shape up or you'll get shipped out" attitude. (Though I will admit, the pearl-clutching and performative horror over the incredibly bland, milquetoast "changes" to Rule Zero was pretty funny.)

Well, if a DM feels that strongly about I feel it's obvious that forcing the issue, even if it worked, wouldn't result in a fun game. IMO no game run by an unhappy GM is going to work out well.

Oh, certainly. Hence why I said I cut my losses and departed that game. But when that happened a second time, with a completely different DM, I wised up pretty quickly; I did not wish to risk a third. 5e DMs were, consistently, not interested in receiving player feedback or discussing anything about the campaign proposal other than what part of it I would be allowed to settle into. And yes, I do credit (or perhaps blame?) the presentation and advice in the books for partially encouraging this particular strain of DM thinking. It's why I've been such a vocal critic of "DM Empowerment" over the years, and why I think so little of any argument that remotely takes seriously the idea of "player entitlement". (Indeed, "player entitlement" is probably my second most-hated phrase in all of TTRPG discussion, and only narrowly beaten by the most: "white room". Mostly because they're non-arguments, emotional short-circuits designed to reject any possibility of discussion or alternatives to whatever the person using them thinks.)

 

[EzekielRaiden]

My misunderstanding - sorry about that!

Still easier and achieves the same, or arguably better, result to simply say: start at level 3.

Easier? Perhaps. "Achieves the same"? Nope. Because--again--many, many people will look at it and conclude, "Ah, yes, 1st level. The level marked with the first number. Hence, the level you should have first. So all characters should always start at 1st level, no matter what."

 

[EzekielRaiden]

So if we assume that majority of people are so blind to their own interests, if we made the default starting characters to be (effectively) higher level and the lower level ones optional, how would this change matters? We would have just created a new default these players would now unthinkingly flock to, regardless of whether they actually liked it or not. It just so happens that this new default is the one you prefer!

The new default is one that actually meshes with one of the other design goals explicitly assigned to early levels: introducing new players. New players need to be able to make mistakes without fear of failure. Dead characters are always going to feel like failure to new players. Trying to make 1st level simultaneously serve as the gentle, measured introduction for brand-new players AND the gritty hard-as-nails meat-grinder that OSR fans adore is a losing proposition specifically because it will turn away vast numbers of new players.

As I said, I have personally seen multiple TPKs or near-TPKs, ones that resulted in failed campaigns and prospective players--players I consider friends, whom I know have an interest in character development and roleplay--leaving the game indefinitely, perhaps forever. I have personally seen this design choice result in turning away both plausibly major contributors and long-term customers, people whom I knew were interested in exploring both rules-systems and thematic concepts, people who liked thinking about characters and creating characters. (Specifically, they're friends I met through an entirely casual writing "competition" inspired by a famous webcomic; the only "prize" was getting to pick the theme for the next twice-monthly competition.)