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

[EzekielRaiden]

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.

Okay.

Will you accept then that I have never, will never, never even suggested that "accepting and implement[sic] any and all suggestions" is required, expected, warranted, or even remotely reasonable?

Because if I'm going to accept a commitment from you to a moderate, reasonable, restrained take (even if it opens with "there is no compromise and someone has to make a final call" which does not at all sound like even remotely paying attention to anything the players want or say...)

Then I'm going to absolutely expect you to stop doing the same thing to me, painting me as an extremist wacko demanding something utterly ludicrous and inappropriate.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

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.

Okay.

Does that make this representative? Or are you just as biased as me, just in a positive direction rather than a negative one?

Would you be willing to actually TALK about that then?

Instead of always, immediately, leaping to how utterly essential it is that DMs have "absolute power" and can do whatever they want, whenver they want, for as long as they want, with players' only recourse being submission or flipping the table?

Because I don't really know how else to interpret it when I describe genuine compromise (as in, people working together to find a consensus they accept), and every. single. damn. time, you follow that up with "Nope, it HAS to be absolute power, it cannot be anything else other than absolute power." That doesn't tell me you discuss things or listen or respond to feedback. Instead, it tells me you're approaching every single situation with, "I have to be prepared for the worst-case scenario behavior from every single player." Which is exactly the extremist argument that keeps getting levied at me, over and over and over, and when I respond by asking about the extreme in the other direction, I'm the one at fault.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I tell people what kind of game I run, what ruleset we're using, restrictions and so on in my invite. I run campaigns in my home world but I still have quite a bit of flexibility. So if this is an established group I'll discuss options and of course they can make suggestions on general theme of the campaign, at least to start. Once the campaign starts it's very player choice directed.

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.

Okay.

The jerkass, demanding, petulant player is also a really moldy strawman. Are you willing to let it go too?

 

[EzekielRaiden]

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.

No, you aren't. You are pushing a strawman just as much. But since it is always...
Me: Discussion between good-faith participants essentially always means compromise is possible.
You: But what about the irreconcilable times?
Me: Those are so rare as to functionally not matter, if everyone is actually participating in good faith.
You: But what about the irreconcilable times???

This has happened over and over again. If you don't want this to turn into an extremist argument, don't attribute extremes to the other side first.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

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

....does that matter?

I'm genuinely serious. Even if the answer is no (and I'm fairly sure it isn't--comics in general love their time travel retcon-induced angst and Spider-Man is always in the top 5 of Most Angsty Marvel Supers), does it matter that it hasn't happened more than once in a single continuity?

Because once the Pandora's box of infinite retcon-erasure is opened, it cheapens the stakes of every future conflict, even if it's in a new continuity. I've seen many people have this exact response to Spider-Man specifically, and to superhero deaths generally. Another great example is deaths in shonen anime. Somebody of meaningful importance "dies" in a shonen anime? You straight-up won't be able to convince the audience that they're actually dead, not for a long, long time, unless you go through the full and complete motions (like what Fullmetal Alchemist does with--obviously, major spoilers--Lt. Col. Maes Hughes, where his death is given exactly the amount of weight it deserves, the characters don't instantly and totally shut down without him but they intensely feel his loss and the story lingers on the consequences of his death.) Shonen protagonists in particular are basically totally immune to any actual death, so authors/artists who frame a scene as potentially lethal for a shonen protagonist are basically never able to actually convince the audience that the stakes are real. The bluff will always be called, because it always is a bluff, and then both sides are left disappointed and unsatisfied.

 

[Lanefan]

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.

I'd also add in there being a very real likelihood of the rest of the party not accepting a non-Dwarf in their ranks, depending how this is set up; and would suggest in the strongest terms that the player have a second character - a Dwarf - on standby.

 

[Maxperson]

Would you be willing to actually TALK about that then?

Instead of always, immediately, leaping to how utterly essential it is that DMs have "absolute power" and can do whatever they want, whenver they want, for as long as they want, with players' only recourse being submission or flipping the table?

I do. Pretty much every time. I say that the DM has absolute authority, because that's what the rules give him. But I also say that the DM shouldn't abuse that authority, and that I talk with my players and work out just about every situation. I can only think of once or twice in the last 15 years where I went against the full table on a rule/ruling.

That's not to say that there were never instances where I made a ruling and the player wasn't thrilled with it, but if it mattered enough to talk about, we almost always work it out.

Edit: Oh, and I've seen a lot of folks here talking about long term campaigns they play in. It's not a rare thing from what I can tell.

 

[Lanefan]

No, you aren't. You are pushing a strawman just as much. But since it is always...
Me: Discussion between good-faith participants essentially always means compromise is possible.
You: But what about the irreconcilable times?
Me: Those are so rare as to functionally not matter, if everyone is actually participating in good faith.
You: But what about the irreconcilable times???

Flaw in this argument: the bolded. Even when people are acting in good faith (which itself is somewhat less common than you seem to want to admit) binary either-or questions come up all the time.

And there's no such thing as compromise on a binary either-or (or yes-no) question. This is why in real life we have votes and referenda and so forth; to arrive at an aggregate majority answer that is still not a compromise.

In-game example: determined to play a Paladin, a player tries to bring one into a party. The rest of the party, in character, are each either willing to accept the Paladin or they are not. No compromise there; so the DM grabs some popcorn.....

 

[Micah Sweet]

No, you aren't. You are pushing a strawman just as much. But since it is always...
Me: Discussion between good-faith participants essentially always means compromise is possible.
You: But what about the irreconcilable times?
Me: Those are so rare as to functionally not matter, if everyone is actually participating in good faith.
You: But what about the irreconcilable times???

This has happened over and over again. If you don't want this to turn into an extremist argument, don't attribute extremes to the other side first.

Clearly not everyone agrees that irreconcilable times are as rare as you claim.

 

[Micah Sweet]

....does that matter?

I'm genuinely serious. Even if the answer is no (and I'm fairly sure it isn't--comics in general love their time travel retcon-induced angst and Spider-Man is always in the top 5 of Most Angsty Marvel Supers), does it matter that it hasn't happened more than once in a single continuity?

Because once the Pandora's box of infinite retcon-erasure is opened, it cheapens the stakes of every future conflict, even if it's in a new continuity. I've seen many people have this exact response to Spider-Man specifically, and to superhero deaths generally. Another great example is deaths in shonen anime. Somebody of meaningful importance "dies" in a shonen anime? You straight-up won't be able to convince the audience that they're actually dead, not for a long, long time, unless you go through the full and complete motions (like what Fullmetal Alchemist does with--obviously, major spoilers--Lt. Col. Maes Hughes, where his death is given exactly the amount of weight it deserves, the characters don't instantly and totally shut down without him but they intensely feel his loss and the story lingers on the consequences of his death.) Shonen protagonists in particular are basically totally immune to any actual death, so authors/artists who frame a scene as potentially lethal for a shonen protagonist are basically never able to actually convince the audience that the stakes are real. The bluff will always be called, because it always is a bluff, and then both sides are left disappointed and unsatisfied.

If the continuity remains constant, then it isn't a reboot. So yes, it matters very much to me.