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

[EzekielRaiden]

No one. Why would you think someone who played a tiefling or Dragonborn was “not nice”? Genuine question, I really don’t understand your logic.

Because that was literally the justification given for opposing player agency in character creation. That it is disruptive for players to choose anything but the predefined choices granted to them by the DM, and specifically because it is disruptive, DMs are justified in forbidding it. (Meanwhile, it is totally unacceptable for DMs to forbid disruptive character behaviors from their players, no matter what those behaviors might be nor the degree of their disruption, with no explanation for this discrepancy other than "Because the DM says".)

If we assume all of the players are well-behaved, then why is the DM forbidding a well-meaning, undisruptive request? The only reason to do so is if the DM is crapping on the player's request, which (per your instruction) I have assumed is non-disruptive because the players in question are being presumed to be nice.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Because that was literally the justification given for opposing player agency in character creation. That it is disruptive for players to choose anything but the predefined choices granted to them by the DM, and specifically because it is disruptive, DMs are justified in forbidding it. (Meanwhile, it is totally unacceptable for DMs to forbid disruptive character behaviors from their players, no matter what those behaviors might be nor the degree of their disruption, with no explanation for this discrepancy other than "Because the DM says".)

If we assume all of the players are well-behaved, then why is the DM forbidding a well-meaning, undisruptive request? The only reason to do so is if the DM is crapping on the player's request, which (per your instruction) I have assumed is non-disruptive because the players in question are being presumed to be nice.

You are assuming all relationships must be antagonistic. That’s not how friendship works. The DM doesn’t need to “forbid” anything. If the DM says “in this adventure you are all halflings from the Shire” the players will go make halfling characters. Not because they have been “forbidden” from doing anything else, but because they trust their friend the DM to send them on an entertaining halfling-focused adventure. And they know that there will be plenty of other games in the future when then can play a different character.

 

[Lanefan]

Because that was literally the justification given for opposing player agency in character creation. That it is disruptive for players to choose anything but the predefined choices granted to them by the DM, and specifically because it is disruptive, DMs are justified in forbidding it. (Meanwhile, it is totally unacceptable for DMs to forbid disruptive character behaviors from their players, no matter what those behaviors might be nor the degree of their disruption, with no explanation for this discrepancy other than "Because the DM says".)

If we assume all of the players are well-behaved, then why is the DM forbidding a well-meaning, undisruptive request? The only reason to do so is if the DM is crapping on the player's request, which (per your instruction) I have assumed is non-disruptive because the players in question are being presumed to be nice.

If you agree to play in a game under that game's defined parameters* and then turn around and make a request - no matter how nicely - that goes outside those parameters, aren't you violating the agreement you just made?

* - which I would assume are explained to you at or before the point at which you're invited in, so you can make an informed decision.

 

[Lanefan]

Because that was literally the justification given for opposing player agency in character creation. That it is disruptive for players to choose anything but the predefined choices granted to them by the DM, and specifically because it is disruptive, DMs are justified in forbidding it. (Meanwhile, it is totally unacceptable for DMs to forbid disruptive character behaviors from their players, no matter what those behaviors might be nor the degree of their disruption, with no explanation for this discrepancy other than "Because the DM says".)

If we assume all of the players are well-behaved, then why is the DM forbidding a well-meaning, undisruptive request? The only reason to do so is if the DM is crapping on the player's request, which (per your instruction) I have assumed is non-disruptive because the players in question are being presumed to be nice.

Players can be both nice and disruptive at the same time; even more so if their disruption is unintentional.

That, and I personally don't often find in-character behavior to be all that disruptive until and unless it comes out of character and produces table arguments. If the players are roleplaying their characters to do what those characters would do, that's just part of the game; and if it means no actual adventuring gets done this session because they're all too busy playing pranks on each other then so be it - it's no skin off my nose as DM.

What I do find disruptive as DM are players who want to have things I-as-DM consider to be monsters as their PCs, because (unless it's a real one-off, courtesy of some very unlikely dice-rolling during char-gen, in which case I don't care as much about balance etc. because the odds aren't great of it lasting very long anyway) it makes me do work that I don't think I should have to do in order to incorporate this new species into my system:

--- coming up with rules and mechanics for the new species
--- balancing the new species - if I can - against the PC-playables that already exist, preferably without making substantive changes to other PC-playable species to compensate
--- doing a write-up of just what the new species is and what its benefits and drawbacks are
--- rejigging the setting maps to give PCs of that species at least one place to call home
--- tweaking the setting background and history to add that species in and explain why and how it is there

And if the species is widely viewed in the setting as a monster then there's also:

--- having to warn players that playing that species might be extra challenging: it's entirely possible the rest of the party won't accept it ("I've spent years learning how to kill these things and now you want me to run with one?") and almost certain that in any number of locations in the setting it might well be shot on sight as a monster
--- having to deal with complaints when that warning goes unheeded and things go south for the monster-species PC.

I mean, using Dragonborn (or 3e's Half-Dragons) as an example: what possible mechanical drawback could I put on them that would cancel out their having a built-in breath weapon right from Day 1, such that they and Humans are balanced? And yes, it would be right from Day 1; the breath weapon is intrinsic to all members of the species whether adventurers or not and thus cannot reasonably be something that only comes online at higher level and-or improves with level.

Combine that with a) their scaly skin giving them what amounts to a baked-in Barkskin effect, b) their intrinsic toughness (they'd get a positive Strength ASI and maybe a Con one as well*), and c) their intrinsic resistance to their own damage type (which most characters need a rather expensive magic item to achieve) - yeah, just giving them a negative ASI on Dex and Cha isn't nearly enough to balance them against Humans (who in my game don't get ASIs on anything).

* - WotC can go to hell with their floating ASIs; they are and always will be hard-tied to species round here.

 

[Rya.Reisender]

I think "once" is perfect. If there are no character deaths, then your players will think they cannot die no matter what and they will play way less cautious, which also ruins a bit the immersion.

But a character death also sucks for the player so it shouldn't happen too often.

By having a character die once, you basically show your players "I'm serious, if you mess up, you die" and it will improve the quality and immersion for the rest of the adventure.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

You are assuming all relationships must be antagonistic.

I am, in fact, not. I'm starting from the position that others have specifically given me, which is that DMs forbid "disruptive" (a term repeatedly used by others) things, things that would harm their "vision" (another term frequently used by proponents of this style). This is their framing, not mine.

My framing is that people come to the table with a sincere desire for everyone to have a good time, and that this is essentially always possible with discussion, so long as all participants are acting in good faith. I've made this position clear many, many, many, many times.

That’s not how friendship works.

I know it's not. But this is the forced dichotomy I keep getting shoved in my face over and over and over.

This is not my dichotomy. It's the dichotomy forced by those who advocate for the autocrat-auteur DM.

The DM doesn’t need to “forbid” anything.

Ask @Lanefan, @Oofta, @Maxperson, and various other things.

If the DM says “in this adventure you are all halflings from the Shire” the players will go make halfling characters.

.....that is forbidding things. It is 100% identical to, "You are forbidden from playing anything that isn't a halfling from the Shire."

Not because they have been “forbidden” from doing anything else, but because they trust their friend the DM to send them on an entertaining halfling-focused adventure.

Why?

Seriously. Why? I don't understand this. I like, respect, and trust my friends. Not one part of that entails instantaneously believing "ah, yes, this WILL be the absolute best choice no matter what" just because a friend proposed it. I expect to, y'know, actually be CONVINCED to do it. Something that is never, ever discussed or even mentioned in this sort of thing. It is always--always--a diktat from on high. "This is what we ARE playing. Don't like it? There's the door. Bye."

And they know that there will be plenty of other games in the future when then can play a different character.

How? How do you "know" that? Because I sure as hell don't, and the specific people who make these arguments are quite clear that it will NEVER be the case that that will be allowed at their table--and, quite often, these people are also the forever DM of their group, so there is no other option.

Why are you presuming only the rosiest possible situation, while when I talk about having a conversation, frankly expressing views, and each side working to find common ground, it is always--I stress, 100% always--expected to endure the absolute worst-case scenario?

 

[Paul Farquhar]

.....that is forbidding things. It is 100% identical to, "You are forbidden from playing anything that isn't a halfling from the Shire."

You have a very queer idea about friendship. Is the only reason you don't beat up your friend and steel their lunch money because you are forbidden to do so?!

Not one part of that entails instantaneously believing "ah, yes, this WILL be the absolute best choice no matter what" just because a friend proposed it.

The you DON'T trust them.

Something that is never, ever discussed or even mentioned in this sort of thing. It is always--always--a dictat from on high.

No. You are misinterpreting/misrepresenting what is being said. These things are of course discussed before the game begins. If you are being technical, the DM is not the DM until play starts. Up until that point its just a group of friends discussing the parameters of the game of lets pretend they are going to play.

Why are you presuming only the rosiest possible situation

That's my experience. MY friends are decent people, they wouldn't do anything to hurt me or each other. They trust me to create and run a game which is designed for their enjoyment. So far as I can tell that is also the experience of most other people posting on this forum.

, while when I talk about having a conversation, frankly expressing views, and each side working to find common ground, it is always--I stress, 100% always--expected to endure the absolute worst-case scenario?

It's pretty clear you have had a lot of negative experiences. THIS IS NOT COMMON.

 

[Oofta]

I am, in fact, not. I'm starting from the position that others have specifically given me, which is that DMs forbid "disruptive" (a term repeatedly used by others) things, things that would harm their "vision" (another term frequently used by proponents of this style). This is their framing, not mine.

My framing is that people come to the table with a sincere desire for everyone to have a good time, and that this is essentially always possible with discussion, so long as all participants are acting in good faith. I've made this position clear many, many, many, many times.


I know it's not. But this is the forced dichotomy I keep getting shoved in my face over and over and over.

This is not my dichotomy. It's the dichotomy forced by those who advocate for the autocrat-auteur DM.


Ask @Lanefan, @Oofta, @Maxperson, and various other things.


.....that is forbidding things. It is 100% identical to, "You are forbidden from playing anything that isn't a halfling from the Shire."


Why?

Seriously. Why? I don't understand this. I like, respect, and trust my friends. Not one part of that entails instantaneously believing "ah, yes, this WILL be the absolute best choice no matter what" just because a friend proposed it. I expect to, y'know, actually be CONVINCED to do it. Something that is never, ever discussed or even mentioned in this sort of thing. It is always--always--a diktat from on high. "This is what we ARE playing. Don't like it? There's the door. Bye."


How? How do you "know" that? Because I sure as hell don't, and the specific people who make these arguments are quite clear that it will NEVER be the case that that will be allowed at their table--and, quite often, these people are also the forever DM of their group, so there is no other option.

Why are you presuming only the rosiest possible situation, while when I talk about having a conversation, frankly expressing views, and each side working to find common ground, it is always--I stress, 100% always--expected to endure the absolute worst-case scenario?

I want everyone at the table to enjoy the game. I am one of those people and I don't enjoy games with evil PCs so I forbid them. I also accept that I am not the right DM for everyone.

I think that makes me pragmatic. I can't please everyone, so I may as well play with people that enjoy the same things I do. As long as a zdM is clear on restrictions and expectations it's not the DM's fault if it doesn't work for me.

I'm not going to feel bad about running the best game I know how even if some rando on the internet disagrees. It also does not make me a dictator or a control freak or someone who ignores what the players want.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

You have a very queer idea about friendship. Is the only reason you don't beat up your friend and steel their lunch money because you are forbidden to do so?!

No. And I'm really not sure where you draw the connection. The friend isn't TELLING me, "We're going to lunch, and you won't take my money." Your description literally was the person telling the group, "We will be doing this thing," which...as I said is logically equivalent to telling people that they aren't allowed to do anything else. That's literally what it means to tell people that they're going to do one specific thing. It necessarily means you're not letting them do anything else. Like that's literally the logical converse. "For all X, if X is a player character, X is a Y" is 100% logically equivalent to "There does not exist any X, where if X is a player character, X is not a Y." By definition they are equivalent.

The you DON'T trust them.

Sure I do. I just expect to actually TALK with them about things, as opposed to them shoving it down my throat.

No. You are misinterpreting/misrepresenting what is being said. These things are of course discussed before the game begins.

Not one person ever mentions this. Ever. I've specifically pushed on this point every single time. It never comes up, no matter how hard I push. Hence, I can only assume that it doesn't happen. If people literally ever brought up anything at all about actually discussing things like adults who respect one another, I wouldn't get so annoyed about this specific thing!

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I want everyone at the table to enjoy the game. I am one of those people and I don't enjoy games with evil PCs so I forbid them. I also accept that I am not the right DM for everyone.

I think that makes me pragmatic. I can't please everyone, so I may as well play with people that enjoy the same things I do. As long as a zdM is clear on restrictions and expectations it's not the DM's fault if it doesn't work for me.

I'm not going to feel bad about running the best game I know how even if some rando on the internet disagrees. It also does not make me a dictator or a control freak or someone who ignores what the players want.

Okay. So do you actually talk with your players about premises, and if the players are really not on board, try to find something that does work?

Or do you do as you and several other people keep saying, where if there's ever any kind of disconnect between player desires and DM desires, DM always wins, hands down, no questions, no discussion, nothing whatever, DM always gets whatever they want and players meekly accept it. Which is what you and others have repeatedly pushed as the only possible solution to any meaningful difference between player and DM.