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

[Chaosmancer]

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.

Almost like we should have a whole session, before the game begins, for these types of discussions. Something that happens before session one, where people don't feel like discussing these things wastes game time. If only we had a name for them...

 

[Micah Sweet]

The DM grabs popcorn? Why doesn't the DM with their ultimate authority over all things at the table simply say "No, your characters will be okay with this paladin joining the party." You do have ultimate unquestioned authority to decide this, right? You can just force the group to obey.

Or is it more complicated than "I am the DM. My word is Law."

What exactly are you trying to convince people of here?

 

[Micah Sweet]

Almost like we should have a whole session, before the game begins, for these types of discussions. Something that happens before session one, where people don't feel like discussing these things wastes game time. If only we had a name for them...

Does when a conversation happens affect whether or not we encounter an irreconcilable situation?

 

[Chaosmancer]

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.

Hi waves

Had a game where we were dealing with neo-nazis and a potential "righteous" gnoll genocide. We stopped the game. DM liked his idea, and had invested a lot into the gnolls as enemies. We thought people fighting neo-nazi's shouldn't be genociding people based on biological determinism. We found a compromise, everyone was happy.

Had more than one game that had an argument during it. Depends on what you mean by argument I suppose, but more than one of them I would still say I enjoyed the game, because the argument was not the game.

 

[Oofta]

None of this really contradicts or says anything about what I was responding to, except to double down on it. Okay, you'd allow a non-dwarf character in a dwarf game. Cool. There are still limits you won't budge on. And in this moment I am not judging you, just pointing out that since that is true, it is a little harsh of Swarmkeeper to jump on "why are you assuming the conversation will not happen" when there are conversations you will not have. Making it, in the end, a fair assumption, even if the precise details of what you will not have a conversation on do not precisely match the precise details others will not have a conversation on.

And? I'm the one running the game. I have a handful of house rules and expectations. If you don't like my restrictions, I have plenty of people willing to play. So are you saying that any restrictions, any restrictions at all are verboten?

A player wants to play an evil PC. I don't want to allow an evil PC and I know at least a few of my current players would not want one at the table either. What discussion are we supposed to have?

 

[Lanefan]

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.

Do I go left or right at the T-junction I'm approaching?

Also, no matter how much debate etc. goes into a yes-no vote or referendum, in the end it's still a binary choice when you go to mark your ballot.

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.

Depends on priorities. If the priority is to make a hard decision now and get it over with, that digging-in process is counterproductive.

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?

Well, it could be, if it comes down to an in-character "he goes or I go" situation. I've both DMed and played through these, where two (or more) characters simply refuse to run together and it hasn't (yet) come to blows or weapons.

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.)

My expectation is that character feelings and player feelings are kept separate.

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 out-of-character discussion which, while fine, IMO should 100% be done in-character if and when the Paladin tries to join the party.

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.

To the bolded: as DM I don't much care about in-character group cohesion, and am happy to let 'em fight if that's what they want to do.

In the specific conversation above, E is taking a significant risk in not playing a Paladin right from the start for two reasons: a) it might not survive long enough to get to the point where its Paladin side kicks in, and b) the other players meta-know what's coming and might take subtle (or even not so subtle!) in-character steps to prevent it evolving to Paladin.

A-D are also taking a slight risk in that E might play the character as a holier-than-thou jackass right from the start, specific class be damned.

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.

It also takes people who aren't at least so some degree stubborn, of which I know few if any.

That, and - as I have far too much experience with "compromisers" well-versed in how to get their way in the long run through quiet lobbying and passive-aggressive tactics - I've learned that forcing a hard decosion right now can save potentially years of annoyance later.

 

[Lanefan]

The DM grabs popcorn? Why doesn't the DM with their ultimate authority over all things at the table simply say "No, your characters will be okay with this paladin joining the party." You do have ultimate unquestioned authority to decide this, right? You can just force the group to obey.

Or is it more complicated than "I am the DM. My word is Law."

As referee my word is law and in this instance I choose not to say anything. Fight it out in character, guys, and let me know when you're done.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

A player wants to play an evil PC. I don't want to allow an evil PC and I know at least a few of my current players would not want one at the table either. What discussion are we supposed to have?

I don't feel this needs to be a rule. A friend who knows the other players are not comfortable with evil PCs will simply not make an evil PC because they do not want to upset their friends.

This is an out-of-character discussion which, while fine, IMO should 100% be done in-character if and when the Paladin tries to join the party.

Friends behaving decently will avoid creating obstacles for other players. That means "it's what my character would do" is not being a good friend if it is causing a problem for other players. Characters can always change and evolve.

 

[Oofta]

I don't feel this needs to be a rule. A friend who knows the other players are not comfortable with evil PCs will simply not make an evil PC because they do not want to upset their friends.

Friends behaving decently will avoid creating obstacles for other players. That means "it's what my character would do" is not being a good friend if it is causing a problem for other players. Characters can always change and evolve.

I had a person quit my game because they would rather not play than play a non-evil PC. I've had a friend invite me to a game that was going to be centered around evil PCs and I chose not to join. I once quit a game where things like casting fireball full of innocent people to get a suspected enemy and they thought it was funny. There have been other cases where people "misread" rules or simply had a completely different interpretation of the rules as everyone else at the table.

It's great to say "Everybody agrees all the time" but it's not reality.

EDIT:
For the vast majority of people that join my game no evil PCs is not an issue because when they're invited I include a few paragraphs of restrictions and minor house rules. Far more often it's an issue where there are multiple ways of handling something and a person asks "how do you run it" and we discuss. Every once in a while someone misreads a rule and once I review it with them, they agree. I've been in games where the DM simply ran things differently than I was used to so I shrugged and used their ruling. On the other hand I used to run public games and some people would "liberally" interpret the rules or even flat-out rewrite a rule to basically cheat. Luckily that last option was very rare.

It's never been particularly contentious for the DM to make a final ruling whether I was playing or DMing.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

It's great to say "Everybody agrees all the time" but it's not reality.

People in general don't. But friends do not put their own desires ahead of their friends. If a person quits your game because they would not play a non-evil PC, then you are better off without them. They are not a friend or a decent person.