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

[Paul Farquhar]

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).

I don't think anyone ever talks about how well something works for them, unless it's in response to someone else complaining about it.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

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.....

This. The thing that is "so rare as to functionally not matter" is a compromise that leaves all parties happy. The art of compromise is leaving all parties equally unhappy. And that's only achieved after wasting an inordinate amount of time arguing. The main reason players like to transfer the responsibility to the DM is they only have a limited amount of time available to play, and they really don't want to waste that time arguing. Not having an argument is far more important to most players than whether they play a dragonborn or not.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

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.

Not in my experience.

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.

Except that all those things, votes and referenda and so on, almost always involve debate and discussion and formalization. The vote simply sets the agenda; you still have to figure out how it's done. Further, I challenge you to name anything that really is so totally, completely binary that there's literally zero possibility of exploring around it.

Because that's my experience. A hell of a lot of things that SEEM like sharp binaries actually aren't, if you're willing to dig in and figure out what really matters.

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.....

Wait, so now you're encouraging this stuff? I can't possibly be the only person who hears this and has a pretty skeptical reaction.

But let me give you an example of what I meant above when I said that things that seem to be a problem might not be. First: none of the players are actually kicking up a fuss. They want to roleplay through how the characters respond. That's not actually forcing anyone to move away from their choice of character, so....it's not actually a binary? Or at least not one that impedes anything? The expectation is that there will be an evolving story, which is exactly what I want to see anyway. You've presented a "dichotomy" where both of the results are already interesting (even though I don't really like the implications of one side, namely, the extreme risk of bad feelings developing between players because of bad feelings or even bad actions between characters.)

Secondly, but also more importantly, this is a perfect opportunity to dig down, even if we transform this into a true "no we don't want you to play that" issue between players, not an in-story interaction between characters. E.g., what if you have persons A-D already in the game, and person E joins and says they want to play a Paladin.

A: "Oh God. No, can you please not play a Paladin? I just think that would be a really bad idea."
B: "Yeah, I'm with A. Sorry E, I don't think a Paladin is a good fit for this group."
E: "Can I ask why? I know the class has a bad rep."
C: "Well, if I'm being honest, three of us are Chaotic and only two of us are Good."
A: "Yeah. It's not that I don't trust you, I just...y'know..."
D: "You've had one too many jerkass hypocrite moral policemen holier-than-thou extremists?"
B: "Well I mean I wouldn't put it like THAT, but...you aren't wrong..."
E: "I understand why you'd feel that way. That said, I really want to play a holy character, we've already got a Cleric and a Druid, and we could really use somebody with heavy armor at the front."
C: "That is true..."
A: "Sure, but couldn't you just play a Fighter?"
E: "I mean, you're playing a Warlock, A. Would you find a War Cleric as fun as your character, or would B settle for the Beast Barbarian instead of Moon Druid?"
B: "Okay, we see your point, but that still doesn't fix the problem here."
E: "I know. You don't want to deal with someone being a jerk, which I totally get. Hmmm.... Hey, DM?"
DM: "Yeah?"
E: "Would you let me change classes later on? Like if I started off as a Fighter and then 'became' a Paladin, would you let me swap all my levels to that?"
DM: "Hmm. Your background and stats can't change, though any ASIs you get will of course be lost, since Fighters get more of those than Paladins do. Would that work for you?"
E: "Mm. Had kinda hoped I could change my base stats too, but I can work with that."
A: "Oh, I see. Going for kind of a Cecil-type thing?"
B: "Huh? 'Cecil'?"
A: "Character from a Final Fantasy game. Starts as a Dark Knight. Changes to Paladin later, mellows out a lot."
E: "Yeah. Would that work for you guys? Someone who finds his faith or oath or whatever later on? That way he can be a friend first. You won't have to just trust me that I won't be stupid about stuff. We'll build up that connection first, then I can do Paladin stuff, with you guys as trusted friends."
B: "Sounds alright to me."
A: "Okay, I guess I can work with that. I'm not gonna lie and say I'm crazy excited, but that sounds like it really could work. And I do like Cecil as a character idea. Just...keep what D said in mind."
C: "Seems a good compromise to me as well, as long as the change to Paladin is handled properly."
D: "No complaints here."
E: "Cool. And who knows? Maybe my character won't even want to switch when the time comes!"
DM: "Alright, sounds good. Send me your character sheet when it's ready, E."

This is an alleged "binary", yet when you drill down and find out the actual reason behind the opposition, a path forward appears. Because the two allegedly-incompatible sides aren't actually incompatible. When parsed at the end result only--"I want to play a Paladin"/"I don't want to play alongisde a Paladin"--then it seems insoluble. But when you dig deeper, it's "I want to play a holy character in heavy armor" vs "I don't want to deal with a jerkass moral policeman." Those two things aren't incompatible anymore. I've tried to address a range of responses and opinions here: A is the one who has really strong opposition, but B is also mildly opposed and C can see how problems could arise. D is on the fence, thinking A has a point but is maybe going too far. DM has no preference either way, other than group cohesion. E offers a genuine sacrifice (not playing a Paladin for the first X levels, even though that's what they'd prefer to play) in order to lay groundwork to prevent a problem from arising.

I find that nearly all--sure, not absolutely 100% all, but pretty damn close--such alleged "dichotomies" almost always become quite soluble once you peel back the obfuscating layers and drill down to the thing people really, actually care about. Now, obviously, I constructed this canned example and went with just one theoretically-possible path. There are many, many others I could come up with. E.g. "Okay, how about we work out the tenets of my oath, so you can feel confident they won't be harmful to the game?" or "Hey DM, can I seek out X and Y magic items, since that would let a Cleric do pretty much all the Paladin things I'd want to do?" or "Hey DM, would you let me play a Celestial Blade Warlock that can use heavy armor?" or "Could we rework the Eldritch Knight subclass to be divine-flavored?" or, or, or...

All it takes is a sincere commitment to good-faith participation, a bit of patience to try to find the underlying issues, and a bit of flexibility--for both sides, not just the person wanting a thing or the person not wanting that thing to happen.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

This. The thing that is "so rare as to functionally not matter" is a compromise that leaves all parties happy. The art of compromise is leaving all parties equally unhappy.

I hear this statement all the time, but no one actually defends it. They just state it as received wisdom.

I reject that received wisdom. If you want me to take it seriously, defend it.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

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

Then they should defend that position, rather than asserting it as though it were unassailable objective fact.

I've articulated how I think things work many, many times. The counter-argument has always boiled down to "but it doesn't work that way!" without a single scrap of actual evidence or argumentation. Proof by assertion is not a particularly convincing argument.

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

....it's ALREADY a reboot!

If you're starting the same story for a second (third, fourth, seventeenth, one-hundred-and-eighth) time, it's a reboot. If you're telling the story of how mild-mannered Peter Parker, struggling smart student and freshly-employed newspaper photographer, became Spider-Man and lost his uncle and married Mary Jane and then broke off that marriage(/erased it/suffered it being retconned/got projected into another universe where it never happened/etc., etc.), it's a reboot. That story's been told a dozen times or more, in various media.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I don't think anyone ever talks about how well something works for them, unless it's in response to someone else complaining about it.

I mean, I would love to. I love talking about the tools and techniques I've used to get things done. (Anyone who has heard me blather about my solution to the "Always Chaotic Evil" problem for my DW game knows how much I love blathering about the same silly thing.) I find it incredibly interesting and refreshing to learn about the actual game design and DM policy/approach choices used in other games or tables, when those things are really doing something. Like how I find the old-school "armor is an XP penalty you wear to improve survivability" concept, or the neo-old-school concept of "funnel" adventures, which is an incredibly clever solution to a real and thorny design problem. That sort of thing is lovely and I would much, much, much rather talk about that, both learning from others and sharing what I've learned myself.

I just keep being told that my tools and techniques cannot possibly work. That my approach is vulnerable to the worst of the worst cases, and thus is irrelevant and bad and wrong.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

I hear this statement all the time, but no one actually defends it. They just state it as received wisdom.

Received wisdom = thousands of years of experience.

For most people, personal experience.

I’ve never seen or heard of any compromise in which all parties were happy. And I’ve never known anyone say, “well, I enjoyed that game!” When there was an argument during it.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

I just keep being told that my tools and techniques cannot possibly work

Your “tools and techniques” are designed to deal with problems which no one else has.

 

[Oofta]

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.

I don't know what to say. You keep making these pronouncements that I'm some sort of dictator DM I figure I must have missed something. When I DM I make the final call on rules. I follow the default approach of D&D in that the players are responsible for the player's deeds and words while the DM is responsible for everything else. I also make it very clear what kind of game I run and expectations when inviting people to my table but the actual campaigns and direction is very much up to the players.

Meanwhile you have repeatedly used me as an example of a dictator DM that never listens to their players and is a dictator. Since I've explained how I run my game I assume I must be missing something because obviously you have an ax to grind and it's pretty personal.

Some of your quotes (from the first page of my search, if I bothered looking elsewhere there would be plenty more along these lines)

• 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. D&D General - How Often Should a PC Die in D&D 5e?
• That I "forbid" things, which in context I can construe it as describing an adversarial relationship. D&D General - How Often Should a PC Die in D&D 5e?
• 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. D&D General - How Often Should a PC Die in D&D 5e?

That last one is especially false. I may make a call during a game after double checking to verify my understanding because I want to keep the game moving. As I've stated many times, we can always discuss it after the game. So yes, I go back to clear examples of rules discussions that have never been fully resolved on this forum like the rogue thief with fast hands. Because those are the kind of rulings that I'm talking about when it comes to the rules of the game. Clear cut yes or no after we look more closely at the rule. There are other decisions I make of course, because I'm the DM for an entire group, not just one individual. Yet you get ALL CAPS upset when I try to clarify what I'm talking about and then proclaim that the examples I give aren't really the issue.

There's a vast difference between your repeated accusations of absolute power and following the guidance of the roles of DM and player that has always been part of D&D. Yes, as DM I make the final call. I listen to feedback and what players want. Sometimes the answer is "no", sometimes it's "no, but here's what we can do", sometimes it's "yes". It is not, and never, ever has been, always no.

 

[Oofta]

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.

What's funny is that I've pitched an all dwarf party before and there's always a player or two that absolutely refuse to play them. Last time, it was the majority of players were pushing for it when discussing options, but we still had a holdout. Meanwhile I pitched an all elf campaign and absolutely every player jumped on board practically before I finished the sentence.