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

[EzekielRaiden]

Were I a player in this situation I'd make it clear I'm playing "under protest", as it were; by specifically not agreeing to what I see as a poor principle for play (while still otherwise accepting the invite into the game) and then doing what I can to haul that poor principle out into the light in order to expose its poor-ness.

And I'd hope my own players did the same thing when I'm the DM.

I can certainly say that if you said you were playing "under protest," I would ask you to protest on the other side of the designated line for protesters.

Namely, the other side of my front door, if it were in person.

 

[Lanefan]

Sure, a level 1 character with low con might die to a 30 ft pit trap. A 12th level character SHOULDN'T die to a 30 ft pit trap.

I don't think a 12th-level character can die to a 30-foot pit trap (exception: in roll-for-h.p. editions where the 12th-level character still only had 18 h.p. or fewer; but said character would never have made it to 12th level in any event).

The question of whether high-level characters could or should still be threatened by relatively minor things like this is a much bigger one, and brings in questions around power curve, long-tail bell curves, and so forth.

Again, as I pointed out to Micah, treating everything as the same level of danger just leads to confusion. A house fire is dangerous. But a house fire, while a serious threat to me, is only a mild threat to fire fighter, and is a trivial threat Spider-Man. So if I'm telling Spider-man, "there is a dangerous house fire" he's as likely to scoff at me as anything else, because I'm not wrong that it is dangerous, but it isn't dangerous TO HIM. And if suddenly he ends up inside and dealing with a sentient radioactive soul fire that can warp space.... well I didn't lie, it is dangerous, but it certainly isn't what was foreshadowed.

All true. But even then, absent further information other than "It's dangerous", shouldn't one's approach err heavily on the side of caution until-unless one learns the degree of caution actually needed?

Much of the reason a house fire is more dangerous to you or I than to a trained firefighter is that you and I don't have either the training (a lot of which involves safety and caution) or the equipment (which largely revolves around safety) that they do. And even despite all that, every now and then we hear news reports of a firefighter badly hurt or even killed in the line of duty because something went wrong.

 

[CreamCloud0]

Were I a player in this situation I'd make it clear I'm playing "under protest", as it were; by specifically not agreeing to what I see as a poor principle for play (while still otherwise accepting the invite into the game) and then doing what I can to haul that poor principle out into the light in order to expose its poor-ness.

I feel the smarter and kinder decision would be to recognise as you have already identified that this style of game is not for you and just not join their table, you don’t have to ‘play under protest’ because nobody is forcing you to play with them.

And I'd hope my own players did the same thing when I'm the DM.

So you mean you want them to call BadWrongFun on your preferred style of play?

 

[W'rkncacnter]

I recall a certain movie featuring a certain web slinger where he entered a certain burning apartment building. It would have of course been more dangerous to a civilian, or even a firefighter, but it was still worth being cautious to Mr. Parker.

you recall (if the scene i believe you are talking about is in fact the scene that you mean) a certain scene where peter no longer had the abilities of spider-man and thus was effectively a civilian again. the closest comparison would be a 12th level party with 11 negative levels each trying to enter a cave that's dangerous for a level 1 party, and negative levels aren't even a thing anymore.

 

[pemerton]

While I am very sympathetic to these concerns, by that same token, I don't think a pattern like this is "railroading GM story-time" in absolutely all cases. As an example, the PCs in my group considered a powerful businessman an enemy of theirs before they'd even hit level 2. It would have been foolishness in the extreme to try to kill that businessman for a lot of reasons. That would be attempted murder, even if they could prove that he had hired people to kill them first (which he had done, to be clear).

The impression I got from the post I replied to was that the ostensible reason for not fighting the NPC knight was not that it would be unlawful, or socially inappropriate in some other way, but that it would be too dangerous.

the capability to restrain themselves from fighting the end-of-campaign enemy they've just been told repeatedly is too strong for them and not to fight? that knight is a milestone to be worked towards, it's something to drive and motivate them to make themselves stronger until the day they do face them on equal terms.

Nah, he was pulling from a Module and he gave us literally every single warning and chance to back out. It was 100% us. I'm not sure what the point of the NPC in the module was at that stage, maybe just to set up the threat to come back later (because he did reappear later after we had restored a castle and found some magical artifacts to boost our power).

We had also come off a streak of decisive victories, so he might have been feeling we weren't being challenged enough, which could by why he picked that particular module at that time. That game actually died because some players are moving out of state, and we are all pretty devastated about it. It was a great game.

I'm glad that you enjoyed the game!

To me, the notion of a module with a pre-established "end of campaign enemy" does sound very much like a railroad.

Anyway, I agree with you (@Chaosmancer) that "dangerous" obviously is relative. The PCs being told, in-fiction, that something is dangerous - and nothing more - doesn't tell the players much about what the risk is. I also think that, in a game where the sequence of events, the threats, etc are mostly established by the GM in accordance with notes (their own, a module, etc), then it can be pretty unclear to the players whether an in-fiction "it's dangerous!" from a NPC is a cue to go there and do what the story requires them to do next, or to keep away because that bit of the story isn't due to come on stage yet.

In this sort of game, I think it would be better for the GM to be a bit more transparent about what the players are supposed to have their PCs do.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Sure, a level 1 character with low con might die to a 30 ft pit trap. A 12th level character SHOULDN'T die to a 30 ft pit trap.

Again, as I pointed out to Micah, treating everything as the same level of danger just leads to confusion. A house fire is dangerous. But a house fire, while a serious threat to me, is only a mild threat to fire fighter, and is a trivial threat Spider-Man. So if I'm telling Spider-man, "there is a dangerous house fire" he's as likely to scoff at me as anything else, because I'm not wrong that it is dangerous, but it isn't dangerous TO HIM. And if suddenly he ends up inside and dealing with a sentient radioactive soul fire that can warp space.... well I didn't lie, it is dangerous, but it certainly isn't what was foreshadowed.

Yeah, there obviously needs to be more context that some bloke just telling you something is dangerous. This is especially true for games where characters can become quite a bit powerful than normal people. Then again, I haven't found establishing such context to be particularly difficult.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Were I a player in this situation I'd make it clear I'm playing "under protest", as it were; by specifically not agreeing to what I see as a poor principle for play (while still otherwise accepting the invite into the game) and then doing what I can to haul that poor principle out into the light in order to expose its poor-ness.

And I'd hope my own players did the same thing when I'm the DM.

Sorry, mate, that's bloody dysfunctional. If you don't like how the game will be run when it is told you up front before the game begins, just don't participate.

I can certainly say that if you said you were playing "under protest," I would ask you to protest on the other side of the designated line for protesters.

Namely, the other side of my front door, if it were in person.

But, but... discussion and compromise? Nevertheless, I'm glad that you finally seem to agree that is fine to not include the players that do not accept the GM's premise.

 

[CreamCloud0]

To me, the notion of a module with a pre-established "end of campaign enemy" does sound very much like a railroad.

could you elaborate on your reasons why you think this? i mean, i assume that playing most any module comes with a certain level of assumed goals and expected story beats simply because that's how a module works, it's a prewritten story outline, the supporting skeleton of events, it expects some level of buy-in to using the stuff it's going to present otherwise why are you even playing it in the first place?

however, IMO the most 'important' defining factor of what qualifies a railroad is not that the skeleton exists but that you are entirely unable to deviate from it in any way that matters, that your choices and actions have no influence, not that some things are already decided to exist but that anything the players do has no chance of affecting the outcome from a pre-scripted chain of events, if no diplomacy with the knight would ever change anything about their goals, their alligance, their methods. if they could not ally with other factions to help take him down together everyone responds with 'that's not our problem' or 'we have no aid to lend', if the players had genuinely decided 'F this', left the continent and the knight still showed up as their final battle or they had been prevented from leaving in the first place yeah those would be railroading.

but does showing calamity ganon at the begining of Breath of the Wild mean that everything you do in that game was a railroad? simply because your endgoal was set in place from the start?

is it a railroad that frodo gets flashes of sauron before he even properly accepts to be the ringbearer at the rivendell(?) council?

is it a railroad that luke encounters vader in a new hope long before he finally defeats him in return of the jedi?
(i know these media aren't TTRPGs where you have total free will but i feel the point stands)

 

[Chaosmancer]

I trust anyone I play with is going to recognize that an owlbear and a council of ancient chromatic dragons are not the same level of threat. Haven't been proven wrong yet, and if it seems close, I just describe more. No need to go out of character and start using Defcon levels.

And yet if you just describe anything as strong as a goblin as "dangerous" (because they are!) then how do you tell your players that this forest is where they will fight dragons and this forest is where they will fight owlbears?

I recall a certain movie featuring a certain web slinger where he entered a certain burning apartment building. It would have of course been more dangerous to a civilian, or even a firefighter, but it was still worth being cautious to Mr. Parker.

Why, I recall that same movie. And I recall the fire was pretty much a non-threat. Oh I'm sure they played it up a bit more in the film, because of smoke, but he was under no threat of dying in a house fire.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Were I a player in this situation I'd make it clear I'm playing "under protest", as it were; by specifically not agreeing to what I see as a poor principle for play (while still otherwise accepting the invite into the game) and then doing what I can to haul that poor principle out into the light in order to expose its poor-ness.

And I'd hope my own players did the same thing when I'm the DM.

Wheaton's Law in action.