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

[Micah Sweet]

Reboots AND remixes, right? But now you are focused ONLY on reboots? and what? Reboots can only be reboots if they take place in the same time and place? That isn't my definition of a reboot, since a good reboot necessarily takes you to different places.

And no, not just like Marvel. Marvel still has Peter Parker as Spider-Man, in New York, and he is still largely dealing with many of the same struggles. Peter gets married? Within a year the marriage is over and he is back to the same status quo. He gets a better paying job or makes forward career progress? Within a year he is broke and back to the same status quo. Heck, even Batman has a kid now, though treating him having a biological child as being a massive change to his story does a disservice in my opinion to his adoptive kids, whom he has had since the 40's! And of course, he's never had a wife.

The status quo becomes king, because you cannot have infinite character growth, any progress has to be dragged out far too long, or be forgotten/retconned away.

But all of those events still happened. It's all part of the same narrative because the past is still there and still happened in the same continuum. That's what matters from where I'm standing.

 

[Maxperson]

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

Whether you are saying no elves(forbidding), or offering up every option but elves, is semantics. Regardless of how you do it, though, there's absolutely nothing inherently wrong with it. It's perfectly okay to curate when you are designing a setting or adventure.

 

[Chaosmancer]

How does that square with the fact that I'm threatening the characters every time any of the following happens:

--- an opponent swings a sword at a PC
--- an opponent casts a dangerous spell at a PC
--- I place a trap in a dungeon hallway
--- the in-game weather turns dangerously bad

Those are not you threatening the characters. If I walk out of my house, and beat someone with a baseball bat, I have never made a single threat. I assaulted them, but I did not threaten them. Threats are "I will do violence to you UNLESS YOU DO X" not violence itself.

--- the character is put under duress by NPCs using (equivlent of) Intimidate

PCs are generally immune from social skills, because allowing intimidation or persuasion checks to work on PCs involves telling the PC what they are thinking and feeling. This is generally frowned upon, and I know my expeirence with someone saying "I rolled a 32 on my intimidation check, your character is terrified of me" did not induce in me a desire to stay in the game.

As DM it's my bloody job to threaten the characters. I'm there to produce and present the threats* - i.e. the challenges and obstacles and adversities - the characters face. And it's also my job to follow through on those threats and prove I'm not bluffing, if it comes to that.

* - with rare self-inflicted exceptions when they present threats to each other;.

Challenges, obstacles, adversities and enemies yes. Threats no.

That's a very specific and narrow subset of threat. That said, as DM I've a few times had PCs get captured and, if-when not rescued in time, sacrificed for some reason or other.

You are mixing danger with threat. Those are two different things.

And, as the Player of multiple PCs who have been sacrificed "for some reason or other", let me assure you. It has never once felt like a good time, a fun time, and the only reason it was a memorable time is because of how frustrated and upset it made me feel. I understand you do not conceive of the game in this manner, to you it is a trivial matter to be laughed off as you tear your character sheet in half. But this is WHY I do not threaten my players with something I will not do.

Drain their powers? Corrupt them with an evil curse that they need to struggle against? Destroy a precious item? I have a hundred and one things I could do to a character if I truly needed to. "Oops, your friends decided it wasn't worth it to rescue you. You're dead. Roll a new character" isn't one of them.

 

[Chaosmancer]

I invariably refer to in-person games when speaking of such things. I've done some play by email, and find it a very different beast than at-table play.

That said, you started with 5 players but did you have any others in mind as possible replacements for if-when any of those 5 couldn't or wouldn't continue? I started with four, but had a pool of half a dozen others I could invite in if needed; when we split to two parties some of those others did get in. Also, over the years of a long campaign it's likely you'll meet new people who - once you get to know them - might be worth inviting in as well.

And...one of your players just vanished? Was this someone you previously knew? If yes, that sounds concerning beyond just game issues.

I don't get to play in-person at the table very much. This past year, I've had one group that might meet once a month, and that group has currently shattered and we are trying to rebuild.

And, I wasn't the one who invited the players. The person who asked me to run the game offered to recruit players for me because I was busy. They had the access to the pool of people they decided didn't fit the game. Not me.

Additionally, know, I didn't know any of these people except my one friend from before the game before that moment. But I think this is just highlighting the differences.

You had a group of ten people, you knew well, whose schedules matched yours, who likely were not suffering from any issues that would radically alter their lives. I cannot, off the top of my head, think of a group I have had in the past decade where at least one of the people did not need to move, most of them out of state. One group of players who didn't move out of state moved I believe five times, had their first two children, and one of their grandmother's needed cared for due to her dementia. You always seem to assume "just have the social circle I have as someone who has been playing with the same people for twenty years" where you have a frankly ridiculous amount of stability. Many of the rest of us DO NOT HAVE THAT. And yeah, my games would probably be AWESOME if I could get a group to last longer than year. I crave having that sort of friend group who won't vanish after a few months. But I cannot start a game on the premise of a dream group who doesn't exist.

 

[Chaosmancer]

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.

I'm not sure you have to go that far. Getting knocked to zero is usually enough to get most groups panicking.

 

[Chaosmancer]

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?!

That is an incredibly bad faith reading of their position.

The you DON'T trust them.

Needing to be convinced my friend has had a good idea =/= not trusting my friend. Unless the only type of trust you believe in is blind faith. Heck, I doubt most married couples would just blindly go along with anything the other suggested with no double checking the idea.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Some of us have never been "exclusively discussing the desperate worst-case scenario". No "finally" about it. I wish you wouldn't lump us in with those you think are. It might do you some good to ignore those that give you the ultimatum so you can then more easily have the discussions you wish to pursue.

To be fair to EzekielRaiden, I would not be surprised if at least three or four of the people in this conversation, if presenting "we will all be playing hobbits in the shire" asked to play something like a dragonborn who was discovered by hobbits in the shire, would be told no. If they said "can we talk about it" those same three to four people in this discussion might label them a problem player who refuses to abandon their mary sue special snowflake idea and insists on ruining the game for everyone else if they can't have their way.

And I say this because I have seen that exact conversation play out, with those participants, on this forum, multiple times. So, assuming that that would happen again is not exactly unreasonable.

Edit: And I see after responding to you that two people followed up with "I make the pitch, pitch that idea to the people who would accept it" and imply quite strongly that anyone who doesn't like the pitch wouldn't get a follow up on changing the pitch to something they would like. Which is basically exactly what they said would happen.

 

[Chaosmancer]

For me the main benefit is being able to do what I can't do (and be what I can't be) in real life.

I could easily be a cruel person who cares more about money than people in real life. I grew up with a person like that. TRivially easy to do that.

Being a hero who can effectively stand up to injustice? That's a lot harder to do in real life.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Probably none, for you. You seem pretty dedicated to high moral fiber in your PCs, and that's fine.

Besides, since when have either of us been able to convince the other of anything?

None for me implies there are some for someone else. So what am I missing out on by not playing a callous money-grubber of a character? You felt the need to call me out as being unfair by declaring this as what I prefer to do, and not seeing the point of doing it another way, but you don't feel a need to follow through and tell me anything I met be missing?

 

[Chaosmancer]

But all of those events still happened. It's all part of the same narrative because the past is still there and still happened in the same continuum. That's what matters from where I'm standing.

You aren't actually answering the question, and what you say here is part of the problem. Peter Parker has been married multiple times, and had that marriage destroyed or undone every single time. And those things happened, so, unless your name is Charlie Brown, the next time you see Peter Parker setting up to marry someone your FIRST reaction is likely "Oh great, here we go again" because you KNOW it isn't going to last, so it isn't worth getting invested in. Just like the last five times it happened.

And unless you are dealing with flat characters who never change, which can be done well I will admit, you can't keep moving forward with the character, because eventually you run out of things for them to overcome. Which leads to people creating new drama out of nothing, which obviously feels forced.