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

[Oofta]

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.)


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.)

The DM making the final call on rules as default has always been part of the game and does not make them a "dictator". I think giving the DM latitude to tweak the rules is one of the main reasons why 5E succeeded where 4E did not, it was also an issue with 3. This whole idea that everyone should play as if you were in a tournament and therefore had to play one explicit way never really worked for a lot of people. With 3 they tried to define every possibility and codify an answer, they could never cover every option and it just led to a lot of page flipping and "I know there's a rule somewhere". With 4 they tried to codify (almost) every action a PC could take as a power which caused it's own issues.

But TSR versions of D&D? The DM absolutely made the final call, often because there were holes you could drive a tarrasque through or because the rules contradicted themselves on a regular basis.

So if we can get together as a group and play a game that works best for us but a little different from a different group? Awesome. We both get to play the game we want. That does, however require flexibility which means different answers to the same question depending on what kind of game you want. It does not, however, make the DM into a dictator.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

This sounds like flat-out bad DMing.

It would be par for the course with about a third of the 5e DMs I've had.

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 find this principle interesting, since I was given to understand you take a dim view of players playing the species they would like to play, unless it's a Henry Ford-style "you can have any color you want as long as the color you want is black" sort of thing, but behavior you have nothing but full support for. I'm not really sure what to make of that.

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.

Unfortunately, the problem here is that in order for it to be high-risk play, it must come with...well, high risk. That means characters will usually die. Players in general learn a lesson from that: "Taking risks causes character death. I don't want my character to die. Therefore, I shouldn't take high risks...and should probably try to avoid the small ones too."

I can say with absolute certainty that that's how my own players feel about their characters. I've had to painfully slowly coax them out of their shell, showing them that taking risks can actually be fun and rewarding rather than agonizing and marked with a big red F- on their Dungeon World Report Card. Had I put them in a meatgrinder campaign, they would have simply checked out, and the game would have folded, never to be continued. This is a simple, objective fact about my players.

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.

My problem is that the selfishness-first manifesto promotes either that second path, or an even less desirable third: if we abandon him to die, we all get more treasure later. The ultra-mercenary playstyle is where "honor among thieves" dies.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Not in my experience of 5e.

I've found with 5e players typically want to start at 1st level (they were a bit grinchy when I told them a campagn was starting at 3rd). They usually end between level 14 and 20. I've had near TPKs in 5e (party was captured rather than killed). I don't see why anyone finds it too easy (just use higher CR encounters) or too hard (use lower CR encounters).

Somewhat different to my experience with 1st edition, where we largely played modules as one-shots, stating at whatever level the module said. The longest campaign I played back then started at around level 9, but I did play longer campaigns in Traveller and Golden Heroes. We played a lot of different RPGs in those days.

 

[dave2008]

@EzekielRaiden, do you ever DM a game? Why don't you start a 5e game and tweak it to be more what you want? Build a rapport with that group and then get a player(s) to DM so you can be a player in a game style you like.

PS - I say 5e because I think you will have an easier time than advertising an 4e game. The real goal would be introduce 4e bits to your 5e game and then try to get them to move to that system!

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I would assume this is a topic that is discussed in the Session 0 pf the campaigns you've attempted to play.

What do the DMs and, perhaps more importantly, the other players say when the preference to start at a higher level comes up as a topic of discussion?

I attempted to have such a discussion with these DMs, both privately and during what passed for a "session 0" (you may not be surprised to know that many of these DMs had quite perfunctory "sessions 0.") Both in the private conversations and in the public session 0 discussion, my feedback was generally met with a polite response that functionally boiled down to, "This is what I've decided to do, so that's what's happening." Implicitly, a sort of "I appreciate your feedback but will not listen to it."

In most cases where there was any option of discussion at all, the other players were too new to have an opinion yet; can't really say whether you prefer to start at 1st or 3rd or whatever else if you've never played D&D of any kind before. Most of the other cases were folks posting on Myth-Weavers or GiTP looking for players, so there was no real arguing with the listed starting level. (I did ask about it once or twice, but only hesitantly, since...it seems rude to question something laid out in a campaign pitch.)

 

[Oofta]

I've found with 5e players typically want to start at 1st level (they were a bit grinchy when I told them a campagn was starting at 3rd). They usually end between level 14 and 20. I've had near TPKs in 5e (party was captured rather than killed). I don't see why anyone finds it too easy (just use higher CR encounters) or too hard (use lower CR encounters).

Somewhat different to my experience with 1st edition, where we largely played modules as one-shots, stating at whatever level the module said. The longest campaign I played back then started at around level 9, but I did play longer campaigns in Traveller and Golden Heroes. We played a lot of different RPGs in those days.

I run campaigns up to 20 and have never had an issue challenging groups. On the other hand death is not the only risk in the game and honestly I find near defeat, or near death, much more enjoyable. Then again, people are rarely brought back from death in my campaign world so death is almost always permanent outside of revivify.

 

[dave2008]

I attempted to have such a discussion with these DMs, both privately and during what passed for a "session 0" (you may not be surprised to know that many of these DMs had quite perfunctory "sessions 0.") Both in the private conversations and in the public session 0 discussion, my feedback was generally met with a polite response that functionally boiled down to, "This is what I've decided to do, so that's what's happening." Implicitly, a sort of "I appreciate your feedback but will not listen to it."

In most cases where there was any option of discussion at all, the other players were too new to have an opinion yet; can't really say whether you prefer to start at 1st or 3rd or whatever else if you've never played D&D of any kind before. Most of the other cases were folks posting on Myth-Weavers or GiTP looking for players, so there was no real arguing with the listed starting level. (I did ask about it once or twice, but only hesitantly, since...it seems rude to question something laid out in a campaign pitch.)

You have only ever played 5e with new players. Well that is interesting and can potentially explain a lot.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

@EzekielRaiden, do you ever DM a game?

I run a Dungeon World game for my friends.

Why don't you start a 5e game and tweak to be more what you want?

I would never willingly DM 5e. The only games I have less interest in running are PF1e and 3rd edition D&D.

Build a report with that group and then get a player(s) to DM so you can be a player in a game style you like.

So, just so we're clear: "Spend anywhere between 1 and 3 years building up a system you don't really like that much in the first place, cultivating a group of players who share your interests, on the hope that one of them will then eventually run a game you'd actually enjoy playing"?

I hope you can see why this isn't exactly a compelling sales pitch.

PS - I say 5e because I think you will have an easier time than advertising an 4e game. The real goal would be introduce 4e bits to your 5e game and then try to get them to move to that system!

Given the near-zero likelihood of anyone I DM'd for actually choosing to become a DM themselves, I'm not really seeing any advantage either way. For the time being, I'm content to game with one of the better GMs I've played with over the years (our very own Hussar, who very graciously invited me into his long-term gaming group. We're actually about to hit my one-year anniversary with the group!)

 

[EzekielRaiden]

You have only ever played 5e with new players. Well that is interesting and can potentially explain a lot.

Oh, not exclusively new players. I'd say about half of the games I've played were with mostly-new players though. Slightly fewer brand-new DMs, but still a fair number of those as well.

 

[dave2008]

Oh, not exclusively new players. I'd say about half of the games I've played were with mostly-new players though. Slightly fewer brand-new DMs, but still a fair number of those as well.

And no one agreed or supported your desire to start play at a higher level? That is interesting as well. It suggest some things to me for sure.