Chance of PC Failure

[the Jester]

One of the very interesting things about the evolution of D&D over the years is the attitude about pc failure.

In the early years (and I'd say up through much of 1e), it was a given in many groups that pc survival rate was low- that, say, half of all pcs would die before attaining 2nd level.

In late 1e (especially DragonLance) and then 2e, the emphasis on "story" started a tendency towards plot immunity for pcs that seems implicitly stronger than ever in 4e (with a mix of attitudes in 3e). For example, at the end of Keep on the Shadowfell is a section on "Failure" that basically says, "If the pcs fail, let them go pretty much without consequence".

How do you feel about the chance of pc failure? There's a great range of opinion on this, and I think DnDN will support a wide array of playstyles, but what's your preference? If you, as a dm, use a "world will end" plot in your campaign, are you prepared to end the world if you have a tpk? Do you prefer a "no pc dies without the player's permission" style? Do you like a game where pc turnover is common or rare? Do you like it when there is a real chance of actual mission failure, and real consequences, or is it more fun when the pcs always win?

 

[kitsune9]

When I run my games, I deal with the possibility of PC failure a lot. What happens is if the BBEG wins and there is a TPK? I have those questions answered so that if the players want to continue the campaign, then here's what happens; otherwise, we go onto the next campaign.

 

[BobTheNob]

Without the chance of failure, whats the point in playing? Problem is that failure can leave such a bitter taste on the players mouth that the resent having played (OH the rage quits from people having had characters die over the years!).

D&D puts alot of emphasis on character growth, and going backwards (i.e. having a character die and having to start a new one at lvl 1 or at least a couple of levels behind everyone else) just sux! Its the nature of D&D, you cant spend a year building a character through the levels then in one night of bad rolls have the character die and expect players will enjoy it. Its a bitter, bitter pill to swallow.

I think we need to detach the definition of "failure" from character death, and associate more with story. Storylines that ALLOW for player not succeeding at key points.

Either that or flatten advancement so death doesnt taste so bad.

 

[the Jester]

Without the chance of failure, whats the point in playing? Problem is that failure can leave such a bitter taste on the players mouth that the resent having played (OH the rage quits from people having had characters die over the years!).

D&D puts alot of emphasis on character growth, and going backwards (i.e. having a character die and having to start a new one at lvl 1 or at least a couple of levels behind everyone else) just sux! Its the nature of D&D, you cant spend a year building a character through the levels then in one night of bad rolls have the character die and expect players will enjoy it. Its a bitter, bitter pill to swallow.

I think we need to detach the definition of "failure" from character death, and associate more with story. Storylines that ALLOW for player not succeeding at key points.

Either that or flatten advancement so death doesnt taste so bad.

My preferred solution is to make it so that it's viable to start every new pc at 1st level and still have that character contribute meaningfully. Though it's not a perfect solution to losing your favorite pc, at least it means that however you slice it, your new character will be able to do something.

Especially if lower-level pcs advance significantly faster than higher-level ones.

 

[Hassassin]

I like PC death to be relatively uncommon. On average a single death every few levels is common in our games, and it's seemed fine.

I do, however, want other kinds of failures to happen - the party has to flee, someone drops unconscious or is cursed, the chest of valuables is mostly ruined when the trap explodes, etc.

 

[Naszir]

Personally as a DM I have always wanted to build a story with my friends. I like having them make choices that affect the world and I like seeing what ideas they come up with.

When the players make a character I usually try and go in depth with them about their characters backstory and then work that into the campaign. Often the backstory has a big reveal at some point of the campaign.

Yet, I still want it to be a game. I want the threat that a PC could die if the characters really take a wrong turn. But the main focus for our group is giving the players meaningful choices that move the story along. Different choices by them will dictate how I build the next adventure and how I make that choice affect their characters.

These days we don't have as much time as we used to so having a PC get killed off after putting a lot of work into it makes for a bad day. Most recently when we were playing we'd get together using FG2 for a couple of hours a week. If one of the PCs were to die while they were dungeon crawling that would effectively end the session. I don't think any of my friends would want that. We like gaming together, we like creating personalities and we like seeing how combat and puzzles unfold.

So, I want the chance of pc failure to be minimal. I want pc turnover to be rare. Their should be consequences to mission failure but character death should not be high on the list.

 

[Yora]

At the beginning of a new campaign, I keep things easy and PC victory and survival is pretty much guaranteed.
Once a bigger plot gets going, the players have to work for their success: I won't kill off characters, but when they are willing to consciously risk great dangers, the safety nets are off. However, when they always keep it safe, they will most likely not succeed in their goal.

The most common campaign type is "Stop the villain before it's too late". I approach such campaigns with assuming that if the PCs play their cards smart, they will catch up with the antagonist at the moment of truth. If they make a couple of blunders, they will fall behind too far to be able to catch up with the antagonist and fail. If they rush ahead and taker greater than normal risks, they can catch up with him earlier than the intended showdown, or make up for falling behind because they made blunders earlier. Or gain some extra ground in case they will fall behind later.
In any way, the plot will continue until the end. The player's don't know exactly how well they are doing in regard to my plans. However, they should be given pointers that things are looking really good for them, and they really don't need to take any risks, or that things are looking bad and they won't make it in time if they don't pull some daring stunts.

 

[Alan Shutko]

I recently started playing in a ToEE game in 1e. Average character lifespan was 2 sessions. For me, that's definitely too much.

I'm for interesting consequences for failure, but the frequency of failure has to be balanced. I've played in a 4e game where about half the time you tried to jump over a barrel to attack someone, you ended up prone with the monsters slaughtering you. Our group went through adventures and managed to make the world worse in each one. When your character's viewpoint is "if I try this quest, I'll only make the problem worse" that's also too much for me.

So, for me, if the frequency of failure is low, there can be higher consequences for failure. If the frequency of failure is high, there should be low or minimal consequences.

Examples: In combat, if I miss an attack the only consequence is an action that didn't do anything. I wouldn't increase the consequences here, because it would suck if every time you missed, you took 5 damage.

Failing a task or part of an adventure should be less common than missing in combat, so it can have bigger consequences. Failing to surprise the guards means the alarm goes off and you have to come up with some alternate plans. I'd call these more "complications" than failures. Complications are often the meat of the game.

Failing an adventure can happen, but it shouldn't happen a lot. I'd be down if I failed half the adventures I tried. But it depend on the consequences. Failing to get all the way to the Tomb of Horrors and the party manages to escape with their lives? Failing to rescue the mayor's daughter in time? Failing to reach the treasure island before rival adventurers get there and snatch the loot? I could see that happening to a party a few times in their career. Enough to sting, but not enough to make them feel like total failures.

Failing with earth-shattering consequences shouldn't happen more than once in a campaign. It shouldn't even happen every campaign, although it can be a possibility. That's because it can get really ridiculous. "First, we tried to kill the rats in the cellar, but accidentally opened a portal to the abyss and demons took over the county. Then we ran away and tried to rob a tomb to get cash to travel south, but we unleashed a lich who has laid waste to the farmlands with an undead army. We thought we might have helped things out when failing the puzzle in the mountaintop temple sank the continent into the ocean, but strangely neither the demons nor undead were affected, and now we've ruined fishing for half the world."

Character death... This has a pretty big impact on the player, so I wouldn't want it to happen a lot. The impact is lower if resurrection is available. I'm not sure how frequent it should be, but I find I prefer the possibility of death to the actuality of it.

TPKs have a huge tendency to kill campaigns dead, so I'd try to keep them rare.

 

[BobTheNob]

My preferred solution is to make it so that it's viable to start every new pc at 1st level and still have that character contribute meaningfully. Though it's not a perfect solution to losing your favorite pc, at least it means that however you slice it, your new character will be able to do something.

Especially if lower-level pcs advance significantly faster than higher-level ones.

I think we are on the same page with that. Thats what I meant by "Flatten". If the divide between levels wasnt so large, going back a few wouldnt hurt so much.

But if you did that, would it be D&D any more?

 

[Hassassin]

I recently started playing in a ToEE game in 1e. Average character lifespan was 2 sessions. For me, that's definitely too much.

You must really like it lethal if two is too much!