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

[Micah Sweet]

There was so much contradictory text in Gygax's writing I think you could say just about any style was what was "intended". People too cautious? Punish characters that listen at doors with earworms! Too aggressive? Punish them by killing all the characters!

Which is why talk of intention should circumvent Gygax (who gave conflicting advice because he had conflicting concerns) and focus on folks like Moldvay and Metzer. B/X and BECMI are much more clear about these things.

 

[Oofta]

Which is why talk of intention should circumvent Gygax (who gave conflicting advice because he had conflicting concerns) and focus on folks like Moldvay and Metzer. B/X and BECMI are much more clear about these things.

Oh, my mistake. I thought we were talking real D&D, not those new fangled versions.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Same old non-answer as expected. Sometimes reasonable people disagree.

Yes, reasonable people can disagree.

Reasonable people also don't have to resort to "I'm the boss, so I win" when they disagree. The entire point I and people like Ezekiel try to hammer home is that

1) People should have conversations, not ultimatums
2) It is possible to find agreement and compromise. Entering a discussion with the attitude of "I am right and therefore this discussion is only to tell them what will happen because I am correct" is an attitude that does not allow for real discussions.

But you constantly want to jump to "everything fails, the people have no agreement and no compromise is possible... therefore what I say has to go" You just insist on skipping every single other possible step in the process.

Did I say it was utterly impossible? No. Did I ever say anything about unquestionable authority? No. I'm sure there are many ways of dealing with it. I simply had a question. The DM says "no the rule doesn't work that way", the player says "yest it does". What happens. But you are unwilling to answer a simple question. If a DM repeatedly makes decisions I disagree with I could, and have, left the game.

But you won't DISCUSS the possibility. You will allow yourself to be questioned, but you won't allow yourself to be open to the idea of changing your mind. And I am answering the question you keep asking. What happens when I say yes and the player says no? We talk about it. And in my experience, 99.99% of the time when I explain things out to the player and show them I'm willing to work with them to achieve something they want or as close as we can get it? Then we don't have to default to the ultimatum of "if you don't like it, there is the door". Most of the time they didn't consider X, or they missed Y, or they are okay doing half their idea and not the other half because they don't want to cause problems for the other players.

But that isn't good enough for you. You need to know if the player insists and insists and insists and refuses to compromise and acts like a bully and jerk, do I have a spine or do I fold like wet paper. Skip steps 1 thru 10, dial it to eleven thousand, what do I do!

Well... it doesn't get there. Steps 1 thru 10 have pretty much always worked.

 

[pemerton]

There was so much contradictory text in Gygax's writing I think you could say just about any style was what was "intended".

No. His section on "successful adventuring" is quite clear.

People too cautious? Punish characters that listen at doors with earworms!

This sort of tit-for-tat escalation is not punishment. It's maintaining the challenge of the game.

One problem with AD&D, though, is that a lot of stuff that, for Gygax, is the outcome of play - like the escalation and baroque-ness that results from maintaining the challenge as players become more experienced - is presented, without context, as stuff for new players of the game to use as their own input to play.

Ear seekers, for instance, would make more sense if the Monster Manual had commentary advising the GM on when it makes sense to use them - ie when players have become complacent about listening at every door, perhaps because they've come up with clever ways to obviate the threat that the additional wandering monster checks create. That's when it makes sense to step up the challenge by busting out the ear seekers!

 

[Micah Sweet]

Yes, reasonable people can disagree.

Reasonable people also don't have to resort to "I'm the boss, so I win" when they disagree. The entire point I and people like Ezekiel try to hammer home is that

1) People should have conversations, not ultimatums
2) It is possible to find agreement and compromise. Entering a discussion with the attitude of "I am right and therefore this discussion is only to tell them what will happen because I am correct" is an attitude that does not allow for real discussions.

But you constantly want to jump to "everything fails, the people have no agreement and no compromise is possible... therefore what I say has to go" You just insist on skipping every single other possible step in the process.



But you won't DISCUSS the possibility. You will allow yourself to be questioned, but you won't allow yourself to be open to the idea of changing your mind. And I am answering the question you keep asking. What happens when I say yes and the player says no? We talk about it. And in my experience, 99.99% of the time when I explain things out to the player and show them I'm willing to work with them to achieve something they want or as close as we can get it? Then we don't have to default to the ultimatum of "if you don't like it, there is the door". Most of the time they didn't consider X, or they missed Y, or they are okay doing half their idea and not the other half because they don't want to cause problems for the other players.

But that isn't good enough for you. You need to know if the player insists and insists and insists and refuses to compromise and acts like a bully and jerk, do I have a spine or do I fold like wet paper. Skip steps 1 thru 10, dial it to eleven thousand, what do I do!

Well... it doesn't get there. Steps 1 thru 10 have pretty much always worked.

Do any of those conversations and discussions end with you as DM doing what you intended? If at the start when you have an opinion and they do on an issue, does yours ever prevail in the end?

 

[Oofta]

Yes, reasonable people can disagree.

Reasonable people also don't have to resort to "I'm the boss, so I win" when they disagree. The entire point I and people like Ezekiel try to hammer home is that

1) People should have conversations, not ultimatums
2) It is possible to find agreement and compromise. Entering a discussion with the attitude of "I am right and therefore this discussion is only to tell them what will happen because I am correct" is an attitude that does not allow for real discussions.

But you constantly want to jump to "everything fails, the people have no agreement and no compromise is possible... therefore what I say has to go" You just insist on skipping every single other possible step in the process.



But you won't DISCUSS the possibility. You will allow yourself to be questioned, but you won't allow yourself to be open to the idea of changing your mind. And I am answering the question you keep asking. What happens when I say yes and the player says no? We talk about it. And in my experience, 99.99% of the time when I explain things out to the player and show them I'm willing to work with them to achieve something they want or as close as we can get it? Then we don't have to default to the ultimatum of "if you don't like it, there is the door". Most of the time they didn't consider X, or they missed Y, or they are okay doing half their idea and not the other half because they don't want to cause problems for the other players.

But that isn't good enough for you. You need to know if the player insists and insists and insists and refuses to compromise and acts like a bully and jerk, do I have a spine or do I fold like wet paper. Skip steps 1 thru 10, dial it to eleven thousand, what do I do!

Well... it doesn't get there. Steps 1 thru 10 have pretty much always worked.

Same old, same old. Not answering the question and accusations that by "The DM makes the final call" I really mean "I make arbitrary decisions without ever listening."

I've had to make the final call on rules now and then or more often correct obvious mistakes. It's not a big deal. You really do need some new material though, repeatedly stating the same old false accusations is getting stale.

 

[DinoInDisguise]

Same old, same old. Not answering the question and accusations that by "The DM makes the final call" I really mean "I make arbitrary decisions without ever listening."

I've had to make the final call on rules now and then or more often correct obvious mistakes. It's not a big deal. You really do need some new material though, repeatedly stating the same old false accusations is getting stale.

From my reading of the conversation over the last few pages, I think there is a discussion about a spectrum more than a binary choice. Mostly because things are rarely black and white. So maybe, without speaking for Chaosmancer, its more about how much input you give your players before making the call.

We get a hint of this on page 145 with Chaosmancers statement;

But I would never make a call without having a discussion, seeing what the goals of the player are, considering those goals and desires, and looking to see how I might help them reach them.

Here we read that they will make calls as a DM, but for them, seeking input is a needed step. Obviously, this is beyond procedural calls, like asking for a skill check or such,

Now for me, I make the call in the moment, and have that discussion later, in a post session debrief, for that discussion's outcome to be applied to future events. I do this because pacing and momentum of a session are things I value. This seldomly comes up for me though, as I have an extensive session 0 and my players are firmly on the same page 99% of the time.

My questions would be, what level of participation should the players have in any random decision the DM makes? And is it different for rules based decisions and narrative based ones? Furthermore, when do you have those discussions with the players? In a session 0, in a post game, at the moment of the decision, or never?

I think this may be a more productive way to approach the topic than the binary "strawmen" everyone accuses each other of presenting.

 

[Oofta]

From my reading of the conversation over the last few pages, I think there is a discussion about a spectrum more than a binary choice. Mostly because things are rarely black and white. So maybe, without speaking for Chaosmancer, its more about how much input you give your players before making the call.

We get a hint of this on page 145 with Chaosmancers statement;


Here we read that they will make calls as a DM, but for them, seeking input is a needed step. Obviously, this is beyond procedural calls, like asking for a skill check or such,

Now for me, I make the call in the moment, and have that discussion later, in a post session debrief, for that discussion's outcome to be applied to future events. I do this because pacing and momentum of a session are things I value. This seldomly comes up for me though, as I have an extensive session 0 and my players are firmly on the same page 99% of the time.

My questions would be, what level of participation should the players have in any random decision the DM makes? And is it different for rules based decisions and narrative based ones? Furthermore, when do you have those discussions with the players? In a session 0, in a post game, at the moment of the decision, or never?

I think this may be a more productive way to approach the topic than the binary "strawmen" everyone accuses each other of presenting.

There are times when I will make a call during the game after double checking I haven't made an obvious mistake, generally I'm not going to break out the book unless it's really critical. We can always discuss it after the game. There are things that can be read multiple ways and typically we'll both read through it and chat for a bit. I can't remember the last time we didn't come to an amicable solution, even if I was the one that made the final call because my players accept that I do listen and just make the best call I can. I don't remember it ever being an issue. It can sometimes be more problematic with public games because I'd guess I've run for hundreds of people. Run games for that many people and occasionally you get someone that's obstinate in which case I'll tell them "That's my ruling, it's time to move on." Fortunately it almost never gets to that point.

Another case where the DM makes a call is when checks are required. For example of a situational call was the guy who thought he didn't need to make a stealth check because he was flying. I said they did because it was indoors and there wasn't a quiet environment.

Note that this is completely different topic than, say, a locksmith describing how to pick a lock.

On the other hand, if someone wants to play a tortle in my campaign, I'll likely just point them back to my allowed species list (which is in the invite). If they want to have a further discussion about world building and why I've made that decision we can get into that discussion as long as they know it's not something I'm going to change my mind on.

In the case of no evil PCs, it is my judgement call on what's evil. For example I believe torture is not only ineffective, it's also evil. Feel free to disagree but when I DM that's going to be my call.

But I've already explained all of this. Many times. It's not binary, I don't just make snap judgements. I simply follow the guidance of the game that the DM makes the final call on how to interpret the rules.

 

[DinoInDisguise]

But I've already explained all of this. Many times. It's not binary, I don't just make snap judgements. I simply follow the guidance of the game that the DM makes the final call on how to interpret the rules.

I didn't mean to make you rehash a bunch of stuff. I was aiming to reset the conversation a bit.

Sometimes I feel that we all get so wrapped up in a discussion that we forget there is nuance and middle ground. And just maybe in these cases, we are like ships passing in the night - much closer than we believe but each still unseen. Maybe my post will be a ray of moonlight to help you see each other. Because I have a feeling everyone talks to their players about goals and expectations, and respects the answers given. But we might just do it in different ways and at different times. We might even prioritize different subjects. But I am sure we all run enjoyable games.

Now your position is clear. If the response was to be "AH!!! Dictator!" well then maybe we know the path forward. If the response is "Here is how I differ," than maybe the path is different. Or maybe I just wasted 15 minutes of my time

This may all just a weird case of me thinking about things too much.

 

[tetrasodium]

I didn't mean to make you rehash a bunch of stuff. I was aiming to reset the conversation a bit.

Sometimes I feel that we all get so wrapped up in a discussion that we forget there is nuance and middle ground. And just maybe in these cases, we are like ships passing in the night - much closer than we believe but each still unseen. Maybe my post will be a ray of moonlight to help you see each other. Because I have a feeling everyone talks to their players about goals and expectations, and respects the answers given. But we might just do it in different ways and at different times. We might even prioritize different subjects. But I am sure we all run enjoyable games.

Now your position is clear. If the response was to be "AH!!! Dictator!" well then maybe we know the path forward. If the response is "Here is how I differ," than maybe the path is different. Or maybe I just wasted 15 minutes of my time

This may all just a weird case of me thinking about things too much.

There may be middle ground, but the objective reality is that the game is one where a player can say "can I/we do $x" & the gm needs to make a ruling when $x is not a thing the rules explicitly provide a relevant rule to handle. If the player doesn't like the GM's ruling they have options like attempting to make a more persuasive case or finding another table. If the player doesn't make use of those options then the GM should have every reason to assume that their ruling was accepted and there is no reason for them as the gm to continue looking for some "nuanced middle ground" beyond the seemingly accepted ruling.

It's one thing to get a "no" or "no because " & quickly try to make a more persuasive case based on the reasons given. It's an entirely different thing to get that no and endlessly push without letting it go or moving on. Sometimes it seems like these pressure on GM's to find compromise and middle ground rather than accepting sometimes "no" is a perfectly valid ruling is just inverting the scenario to avoid pointing a spotlight at a hypothetical player who refuses to accept their GM's ruling who keeps pushing for one more level of "middle ground like this guy.