Chance of PC Failure

[Blacky the Blackball]

Not to turn this into a raise dead discussion, but I'm opposed to raise dead precisely because of the game effect it has. The removal of risk and the entire game result of losing. I prefer a character death to be final precisely because it gives the release of an ending and then you grit your teeth and make a new character to send into the breech.

At low level, although I said I'll usually (but not always, for example if the party are in the middle of nowhere) make sure there's the possibility of getting to a cleric who can cast Raise Dead. That doesn't necessarily mean that the party will decide that doing so is a priority; but that's their choice.

Also, sometimes - for example if someone is disintegrated or their body isn't recovered - it's simply not possible to go and get them raised even if the party want to.

I'd guess that about half the deaths in my campaign are final.

But I certainly wouldn't arbitrarily restrict access to the Raise Dead spell (or to NPCs who can cast it) just because I don't like it; any more than I'd arbitrarily restrict access to divination spells because I don't like them or access to save-or-die spells because I don't like them. The game assumes that those things all exist, and I'd only remove them if the players all agreed beforehand that we wanted to play in a campaign with them house-ruled out. Although having said that, if we wanted to play a campaign with such a different feel to D&D, we'd probably be playing a different game - one without those elements - in the first place.

I also don't buy your prioritization which lowers plot, setting, or sense of realism as being anything universal when it comes to D&D. Some people play specifically to experience a fantasy setting and thus would prioritize setting above other things.

I never said it was universal. I was expressing my preference, not trying to claim any kind of objective truth.

 

[nnms]

Very fair position.

I think my larger point was that it is possible to "win" (and subsequently lose) at D&D. And I don't mean the "if you fun, then everyone is a winner!" stuff. I mean actually beat the challenge. Or die trying.

In order for this to be the case, though, the DM has to play it straight. As soon as you have someone who's job it is to present challenges start to decide what should happen based on "their story" it all fails.

 

[Lord Mhoram]

My approach is PC failure is fine, but Failure =/= Death.

I tend to go old serial route - TPK happens - that is the end of old serial cliffhanger.

Next session is either the character waking up in some bad situation, or the PCs come up with something that fits previous session, but with an explination from another pov that shows the PCs didn't die.

It's worked for me for decades. Sometimes losing that favored Magic Item spawns all sort of new player motivation that wouldn't be there with dead characters.

It's sort of cheesy sometimes but it works for us.

 

[CM]

A while back I ran B3 followed by B4 using the Basic/Expert rules. We followed the rules exclusively save one rule - a nat 20 is double damage. Any pc who died had to start over at first level if he couldn't get raised/reincarnated. At low levels that's pretty much impossible. There were deaths galore. One pc only died once. Everyone else died at least 3 or 4 times. One unlucky/careless pc died around 20 times by his count. None of those deaths ruined the game or the story. A player whose character died simply rerolled and the others role played a recruitment process or freed a prisoner somewhere. He was back up and running in less than 5 minutes generally. The feedback on the game I got was positive. No one whined because they died. No one got frustrated. Most dungeons have a reputation that "No one has ever returned from there." There's a reason for that. Death has to be a possibility or the game is boring.

That may be the first time I've heard of a zerg rush in D&D!

kekeke.

 

[Lanefan]

One unlucky/careless pc died around 20 times by his count.

This does not parse...does this mean one character went through 19 death-revival cycles before the 20th one got him? (and if so how, in any edition, is this possible?) Or are you saying one player went through 20 different characters?

Either way, this sounds like the first adventure in my current campaign: 4 players each running 2 characters at once, and a good thing they were too as there were a total of 22 deaths (full disclosure: 2 of those were petrifications). Only one character who started the adventure lived to finish it...and as fate would have it he died in the next one. But - and this is the most important thing - the party kept going and everyone had fun.

Lan-"the adventure was Keep on the Borderlands"-efan

 

[JRRNeiklot]

Or are you saying one player went through 20 different characters?

This.

 

[Daven]

I prefer a novel-kind game as DM, in which player characters are heroes, and heroes win at the last. I can tolerate a death, if heroish, like Sturm Brightblade's one, if it is part of the story, otherwise they always win combats.
I don't care about realism, about chances of failure because it is common agreement that heroes cannot failure. Story is already written in the main plot.
I am not interested in what, i am only interested in how. How many big bosses die or fly? How many people they save? All the cities or some of them? How many enemies become their allies? How many people love them? And so on.
Totale failure? Not an option.

 

[JRRNeiklot]

I prefer a novel-kind game as DM, in which player characters are heroes, and heroes win at the last. I can tolerate a death, if heroish, like Sturm Brightblade's one, if it is part of the story, otherwise they always win combats.
I don't care about realism, about chances of failure because it is common agreement that heroes cannot failure. Story is already written in the main plot.
I am not interested in what, i am only interested in how. How many big bosses die or fly? How many people they save? All the cities or some of them? How many enemies become their allies? How many people love them? And so on.
Totale failure? Not an option.

I would absolutely hate this sort of game. I'm not a fan of "Let the wookie win" games. Always winning is no different than never winning imo. And even more boring.

 

[Ahnehnois]

Invincible PCs are one valid style, and one I've used.

That said, the rules should assume the opposite. There's no point in rolling anything if failure is impossible. And if the DM does want plot immunity, he probably doesn't want the players to be aware of that!

Plot immunity is a fine topic for the DMG, but the core rules (mostly in the PHB) should be built to allow failure and death and leave the individual DMs to decide how to play things.

 

[ForeverSlayer]

There is no plot armor in my games. The dice land where they fall, sometimes the world does end and the big bad does win.

Also, don't expect your character to get special attention because you spent days building him.