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

[Oofta]

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

I get accused of not having conversations and making "ultimatums" and so on because I follow the advice D&D has had for a half century. Sometimes you have a conversation and there's still a difference of opinion. Someone makes a decision that someone else disagrees with but still accepts the decision as the answer. That's true in many cases in life, not just D&D.

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

If it wasn't for thinking about things too much there wouldn't be the majority of postings on this forum.

 

[Chaosmancer]

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

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!

See, this comes across to me as a pretty degenerate methodology. You want to encourage people to listen at doors, that is a major part of play to prevent players from being ambushed by monsters behind doors. And the solution to ear seekers was... getting a listening horn, to listen at the doors with. And then you "got complacent" doing the very thing that the game wants to encourage you to do!

Seriously, so many people early in this thread were talking about character death as a way to "teach lessons" or "educate players", and one of the BIG ones is gathering information before charging in, which is done in part by listening at the door. This is as fundamental as making sure you put on your armor at the start of the day, but then you are encouraged to "escalate" so that this task requires another simple step, or you murder the character.

 

[Chaosmancer]

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?

Have I ever, over a decade plus of talking to people about the game, ever convinced anyone of anything?

Yes.

 

[Chaosmancer]

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.

Not liking the answer isn't the same as me not answering the question.

 

[Micah Sweet]

See, this comes across to me as a pretty degenerate methodology. You want to encourage people to listen at doors, that is a major part of play to prevent players from being ambushed by monsters behind doors. And the solution to ear seekers was... getting a listening horn, to listen at the doors with. And then you "got complacent" doing the very thing that the game wants to encourage you to do!

Seriously, so many people early in this thread were talking about character death as a way to "teach lessons" or "educate players", and one of the BIG ones is gathering information before charging in, which is done in part by listening at the door. This is as fundamental as making sure you put on your armor at the start of the day, but then you are encouraged to "escalate" so that this task requires another simple step, or you murder the character.

My reason for wanting character death is simply that sometimes people die.

 

[Chaosmancer]

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.

These two things are very different...

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.

...From these two things. To the point that I don't consider them the same conversation AT ALL.

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.

And I've tried to explain to you, multiple times, that I don't see the rules discussions as the same type of conversation. Those are a completely different thing, and AGAIN I don't even see this as the realm of "the DM is the final authority" considering how many DMs go out and listen to other people telling them how to run those rules. The "final authority" is whomever's opinion or reading or statement was the one adopted. If it is Treantmonk's interpretation of the rules that the DM went to conform to... Treantmonk was the final authority. Yes, an individual DM may not go to Treantmonk, but maybe they go to their older sibling, or to another DM whose world they are sharing who makes the ruling, or to any of a dozen places. If the DM is looking to another authority, they are not the final authority.

But I'm not talking about rules questions and I'm not talking about "when a check is required" because those are both very different things than "what classes are allowed in the game" or "is this backstory acceptable". I'll add "what homebrew rules are we using" to the second list, so there can be some overlap but these are different conversations at their core.

 

[Chaosmancer]

My reason for wanting character death is simply that sometimes people die.

And sometimes people don't die.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

And sometimes people don't die.

Yes. I think sometimes not dying happens rather frequently in games which allow the possibility of death. Like at least in my games characters are alive overwhelming majority of the time. (Games of Vampire the Masquerade being an exception.)

 

[Oofta]

These two things are very different...

Yep. Hence my "Another case". Because there are many types of decisions that a DM makes

...From these two things. To the point that I don't consider them the same conversation AT ALL.

I made my decisions a long time ago that are fundamental to the design of my campaign world. If I created a new world every time we started a campaign I would discuss it. I don't so there is no need to.

And I've tried to explain to you, multiple times, that I don't see the rules discussions as the same type of conversation. Those are a completely different thing, and AGAIN I don't even see this as the realm of "the DM is the final authority" considering how many DMs go out and listen to other people telling them how to run those rules. The "final authority" is whomever's opinion or reading or statement was the one adopted. If it is Treantmonk's interpretation of the rules that the DM went to conform to... Treantmonk was the final authority. Yes, an individual DM may not go to Treantmonk, but maybe they go to their older sibling, or to another DM whose world they are sharing who makes the ruling, or to any of a dozen places. If the DM is looking to another authority, they are not the final authority.

I never automatically accept someone else's answers, not even Sage Advice. I may read other people's opinions, I certainly listen to my players but I still make the final decision. If you want to abdicate decision making to someone else, that's fine. It's just not how I do it.

But I'm not talking about rules questions and I'm not talking about "when a check is required" because those are both very different things than "what classes are allowed in the game" or "is this backstory acceptable". I'll add "what homebrew rules are we using" to the second list, so there can be some overlap but these are different conversations at their core.

I covered 3 basic topics. Interpreting rules is one. Rulings for when checks are required and the target DC if it's not an opposed roll, which could include advantage/disadvantage or many other adjustments. World building and similar restrictions, such as allowed races or "no evil". In all cases I make the final decision, even if that decision includes asking for input.

 

[Micah Sweet]

And sometimes people don't die.

But it's never people never die, unless they want to. Not in my game.