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

[Oofta]

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.

If I pitch a campaign I include limitations and restrictions. No evil PCs for example. If someone only wants to play an evil PC and doesn't want to be part of my game, I'm not going to feel bad about it. For that matter when someone pitched a campaign with evil PCs I chose not to join, it's just not what I want out of a game.

If I pitched a dwarven campaign and someone refuses to play a dwarf I'd likely allow it, but they will have to accept that the focus of the campaign is going to be on dwarven concerns because that's what the rest of the group signed up for.

 

[Oofta]

As I said: Every single time this conversation comes up, someone (frequently @Oofta) gives me the ultimatum of "what happens if it can't be resolved?" Every. Single. Time. What happens if it's two things that just absolutely cannot ever be worked out no matter what? There is never lenience given for (what I consider to be) the 99.99999% of cases where it's totally reconcilable because everyone is actually friendly and engaging in good faith. Hence why I assume the loggerheads; I'm the one who has always said loggerheads is incredibly rare.

If we're now, finally, able to talk about the vast majority of other situations where things are reconcilable, awesome! I have always wanted to talk about that, and not about the gotcha ultimatum BS that the pro-"absolute power" DM folks keep pushing. (And yes, I use those quotes for a reason. That is the precise phrase repeatedly used, by multiple posters, a phrase I campaigned as hard as I could against and which folks adamantly refused to budge about. These are not scare quotes. It was literally verbatim "absolute power.")

I only emphasize this so hard BECAUSE I've been browbeaten so. damn. many. times. Because I've had people insist, over and over and over again, that the ONLY surefire solution is to have a DM with "absolute power" who autocratically dismisses player disagreement, in the absence of meaningful discussion, because there's some tiny slim possibility that someone is being a jerk maybe possibly.

Are we finally, finally moving away from exclusively discussing the desperate worst-case scenario? Because the only (realistic) thing that would please me more would be hearing that WotC is officially releasing 4e into the Creative Commons.

In some cases there is no compromise and someone has to make a final call. Can a rogue thief with fast hands cast a spell off a scroll as a bonus action no matter what the casting time is? Kim says "no", Alex says "yes". There was no compromise in the thread this came up in a while back. Someone needs to make the call. I prefer that it's the DM whether I run the game or not. The rules of the game explicitly recommend the DM as the one who makes the final ruling and always has.

I have never, will never, never even suggested that I do not listen to feedback or suggestions so stop making that accusation. Not accepting and implement any and all suggestions is not the same as ignoring player desires.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

But do you really need to insert the adversarial/insulting "players meekly accepting" BS. I've explained how I run my games to you many, many times. But even then? This power hungry DM lording their power over hapless players is a really moldy strawman. Can it happen? Sure. Millions of people play TTRPGs. Does it happen with any regularity? No. At least not for long.

Do you really need to keep pushing so damn hard on "BUT WHAT IF IT CAN'T BE FIXED?!?"

If you're going to interrogate me about worst-case scenarios, why can't I do the same in return?

 

[Micah Sweet]

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?

Playing a mercenary looking for personal enrichment in a fantasy setting can be a fun way to explore a person and personality other than your own, or allow you to act in ways modern society or your own temperament makes difficult. Also, money-grubber and paladin are but two spectrum on a nigh-infinite spectrum.

 

[Micah Sweet]

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.

Has he been married more than once in the same continuity?

 

[EzekielRaiden]

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.

Absolutely agreed. If my negative experiences are not representative, then surely Lanefan's incredibly positive one--a gaming group that is large, stable, continuous, all mutually interested in running and (hardest of all) both mostly sharing compatible schedules and having more than one person interested in DMing--cannot be considered representative either. The massive frequency with which people complain about scheduling being the hardest boss of D&D is proof enough that that damn-near-idyllic game situation ain't representative.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Absolutely agreed. If my negative experiences are not representative, then surely Lanefan's incredibly positive one--a gaming group that is large, stable, continuous, all mutually interested in running and (hardest of all) both mostly sharing compatible schedules and having more than one person interested in DMing--cannot be considered representative either. The massive frequency with which people complain about scheduling being the hardest boss of D&D is proof enough that that damn-near-idyllic game situation ain't representative.

Unfortunately, you always get more pushback when you're complaining than when you're talking about how well something works for you.

Welcome to my world (although I expect you've been there a while).

 

[Oofta]

Do you really need to keep pushing so damn hard on "BUT WHAT IF IT CAN'T BE FIXED?!?"

If you're going to interrogate me about worst-case scenarios, why can't I do the same in return?

The guidance for DMs is and always has been that the DM makes the final call. You repeatedly and misleadingly call me out as being a dictator, someone who always say no and never listens to my players.

I'm simply pointing out a typical situation where, as a DM, I would make the final call. Other examples would be no evil PCs. Since I run my campaign in my own homebrew world there are a handful of other restrictions like what species are allowed because I want consistent world lore that makes sense to me.

I push clear examples because I can't win a fight against infinite strawmen.

 

[Maxperson]

I have never, will never, never even suggested that I do not listen to feedback or suggestions so stop making that accusation. Not accepting and implement any and all suggestions is not the same as ignoring player desires.

 

[Maxperson]

Absolutely agreed. If my negative experiences are not representative, then surely Lanefan's incredibly positive one--a gaming group that is large, stable, continuous, all mutually interested in running and (hardest of all) both mostly sharing compatible schedules and having more than one person interested in DMing--cannot be considered representative either. The massive frequency with which people complain about scheduling being the hardest boss of D&D is proof enough that that damn-near-idyllic game situation ain't representative.

I've played in the group I DM for about 20ish years. Concurrent with that are a group that I've been playing with for 30ish years, though the DM just moved away from California earlier this year so that one is kaput. And another group I played in from 1992-1993 to 2008. Then there was my first group and we played together from 1984 to 2005ish.

Mixed in are a LOT of shorter games and one shots, especially at conventions and the like.