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

[Oofta]

Has @Oofta at any point said they were speaking for anyone beyond themselves and their table?

It's also my preference when I'm on the player side of the screen,but it is just my preference. I don't seem why I would care what anyone else does, even if it's a style of play that means I wouldn't be a good fit for the group. People should do what makes sense to them and their group.

 

[pemerton]

See, this comes across to me as a pretty degenerate methodology.

Well, Gygax got a successful game out of it, so I don't think it was degenerate at his table. Whether the methodology generalises widely is a different question - my purely personal experience is that most D&D players I've engaged with aren't hardcore wargamers and so wouldn't be very interested in this sort of play.

 

[pemerton]

But if such individuals always include the PCs among their number, that is unrealistic to me.

Why? Being a player character is not an in-game state of affairs, so not something that can really contribute to the realism, or otherwise, of the setting.

 

[Oofta]

Oh, there are things you refuse to discuss? Like I keep saying? Like you keep claiming are false accusations, groundless and baseless?

I established long ago that I have some restrictions, the example I've discussed on this thread is no evil PCs. There's no "gotcha" here because I've never said I discuss everything before making a decision. That goes for some rules such as the issue of the rogue thief with fast hands and casting all spells from a scroll as a bonus action as well where the issue came up, I read through the text, read through the discussion and made up my mind.

If someone wants to know why I made the decision I made we can discuss it but unless some new info comes up it's not going to change anything.

Okay then. So, someone can hold the title of DM and NOT be the final authority on all things Dungeons and Dragons. We agree then. I'm not arguing what you Oofta do, I'm arguing what is definitionally possible. It is possible for the DM to not be the final authority on a rules decision, because someone else is who they listen to.

Huh? I listen to other people, potentially including blogs and whatnot and then I decide how to implement the rules. As far as my decisions at the table go, I am the final authority. That doesn't mean I'm just making things up as I go along. As far as what other DMs do? Run the game the way that makes the most sense to you.

Which you just admitted is a possibility but is not how the game has been described in the books for the last half century. So we have two possible ways to do it. One where the DM is the Final Authority, and one where they are not.

Sure, you can do whatever you want. But according to the books, how I run the game, how I prefer a DM run the game when I'm playing, the DM is the final authority.

Right but I've never been discussing whether or not a roll has advantage or what number a DC is. That has never been the character of the rules discussion I've engaged in. So of your three categories, it seems I've been discussing one of them.

I was not answering a post from you. I was answering a general question on DM authority.

And, to make another point, since we agree that a 3rd party can be the Final Authority of a rules decision is a DM obeys their rule decisions, then in regards to world building it is very possible for the author of a book to be the final authority on a setting. Yes, you Oofta run a homebrew world over which you demand final authority status over, but the role of a DM does not inherently require that, when a DM can reference various setting books and authors as the final authority of the world they are running.

Since I never said a 3rd party is always the final authority, not sure what your talking about. If you want to abdicate your authority to someone else, that's fine. I mean I do in some cases because for the most part I follow the rules of the game. I've decided that the people writing the D&D books know better than I do on how to write a game. Meanwhile I still have a handful of house rules.

If I'm deciding on what movie to go see, what TV show to watch I'll typically read online reviews or get feedback from friends. But even if a lot of people raving about a show like Breaking Bad, it's still up to me whether or not I watch it.

Again, I'm not talking about anyone else should or should not do.

So while being the Final Authority may be a factor of how YOU run games, it is not an inherent truism for all DMs at all tables for all time.

I'm not telling anyone how to run their game. A common theme here is you falsely stating or implying that I'm pushing one true way. I'm not. I'm talking about my preferences and what I think has worked well. Everybody should find their own groove. Even if you refuse to give a specific answer on how you handle differences of opinions when they come up.

The default approach to the game is quite clear. The DM makes the final call on rules, but that doesn't mean the DM should ignore what their players want. Seems like you keep believing that since I make the final call I never, ever, listen to anyone else. I don't know how often I have to say that it's simply not true. There are some cases I've thought about something in detail and I've made a choice that is unlikely to change. In other cases I haven't looked into something or don't have a strong opinion. When it comes to actual campaign direction and development, players have a great deal of input.

So again, the same repeated assertions and assumptions.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Why? Being a player character is not an in-game state of affairs, so not something that can really contribute to the realism, or otherwise, of the setting.

Because it is a strong indicator that PCs are different in some kind of fundamental way from NPCs, because they can never die unless they choose to allow it. That's not the case with NPCs.

 

[pemerton]

Because it is a strong indicator that PCs are different in some kind of fundamental way from NPCs, because they can never die unless they choose to allow it. That's not the case with NPCs.

But the bit that I've bolded isn't part of the fiction - because the "allowing" comes from the player, not the PC.

So in the fiction the PC just seems like a lucky devil!

 

[Micah Sweet]

But the bit that I've bolded isn't part of the fiction - because the "allowing" comes from the player, not the PC.

So in the fiction the PC just seems like a lucky devil!

I can't wrap my head around being that lucky, all the time. I can't not see the player's choice over something that the PC has no ability to decide, and I don't want the player to have that power.

Sure, you can square it with the fiction, easily. But it still doesn't work for me. It feels wrong.

 

[DinoInDisguise]

But the bit that I've bolded isn't part of the fiction - because the "allowing" comes from the player, not the PC.

So in the fiction the PC just seems like a lucky devil!

Can two groups have different "fictions" or is this fiction universal? And if the answer is yes they can differ, does anything in you comments here apply to Micah or anyone besides you? And if universal, who decides what the one true fiction is?

Maybe in my fiction, the PC seems like an impossibility and not just lucky.

I'm hoping you can clarify how your fiction applies to Micah, myself, or anyone else. Because I might have missed something simple.

 

[Oofta]

What? Actually discuss the topic of the thread?

I always ask the group what kind of lethality the prefer. In general we go with low lethality, although death is never off the table.

I used to assume that people wanted their PCs to survive but then had a player who kept pushing the envelope. Apparently at one point when I wasn't in the room he was just seeing how far he could push before I would kill the character off. I eventually did because he went off by himself with a woman he knew was evil.* In the same campaign a different player had his elven PC refused to take shelter in an area being ravaged by an orcish horde because the shelter was provided by dwarves. I killed that character off after he failed a check to hide.

*This was also the guy where I would put potential plot hooks specifically designed to his PC's interest (and do nothing more than the absolute minimum prep) so he could purposely ignore them and then gloat about how he had made me waste time. After I killed his first PC, he continued playing for a while and left because he wanted to play a game where "We meet in a tavern and stuff happens." Still not sure what that meant.

 

[Sepulchrave II]

I can't wrap my head around being that lucky, all the time. I can't not see the player's choice over something that the PC has no ability to decide, and I don't want the player to have that power.

Sure, you can square it with the fiction, easily. But it still doesn't work for me. It feels wrong.

I get what you're saying.

I guess I'm just struggling to see the difference - in terms of verisimilitude or plausibility - between a character who is "lucky all the time" and a character who routinely survives fireballs, multiple crossbow bolts, falling off of 100-ft cliffs etc. because he has lots of hit points.

I mean, isn't having lots of hit points just being lucky all the time? Sure, you might die in theory, but is there really that much of a difference - in terms of "realism" - between "being lucky all of the time" and "being lucky almost all of the time?"