D&D General character death?

[EzekielRaiden]

As a player, I'd much rather see my PC die than be artificially saved by the DM.

And what about characters who do in fact actually die, but there are mechanisms by which the character can become re-alived later?

Because that seems to be rather the gaping hole in this. Your objection is to the DM twisting the story into a pretzel so that the character does not ever actually die in the first place. Fine; good even. I would also prefer to not see the story twisted into a pretzel in general. But what about, as I classified above, revocable or non-permanent deaths? Deaths where it is an adventure to restore a character to life; deaths where there really is a permanent cost for having lost one's life; deaths where that death genuinely matters, and is genuinely part of the story, but is not the end of that story?

Because those things are, in general, what folks are actually talking about when they refer to this sort of thing. It's not like you'd find out a bottle-goblin reverse-pickpocketed Zelda-style fairy bottles into everyone's packs. (Though honestly that would be kind of hilarious to do in a fully tongue-in-cheek game...) Instead, it's things like having a powerful ally in the Church of Bahamut (established LONG ago) who pulls some strings to arrange for the character to be brought back to life--but you must do a great service for Bahamut in return. Or having to sneak into the Elder Mountain to steal flaming heart-stone so that a shaman can reignite this little spark of life via a spark of the world's life. Or Baron von Jerq-Phasse swooping in, eager to have powerful adventurers indebted to him, and with a job offer of a lifetime (meaning, a job offer meant to ensure you remain in his employ for your whole lifetime, of course...) Or any number of alternative possibilities that involve, y'know, the character ACTUALLY dying, but not staying dead.

If your opposition is solely to DM pretzel-twisting, what about the nigh-infinite branches of the tree of possibility that don't do that?

 

[jgsugden]

...If your opposition is solely to DM pretzel-twisting, what about the nigh-infinite branches of the tree of possibility that don't do that?

Using allies, magic, etc... to turn back death is perfectly fine - but again, only if it makes sense and has been set up. It is part of the game world - it should be used.

What I am saying is that contrivance to protect the PCs is bad ... and I see it a lot as a player.

I have (even recently) had the DM make the enemies do dumb things rather than finish off my PC. I also had a DM have the enemy take my PC hostage when he went down and the rest of the party retreated without me - and there was no real reason why that should have been beneficial to the bad guys at all. I'd have had no problem with the situation had there been a reason for the hostage taking that made sense. However, when it was clearly just a "get out of jail free" card being played, it felt like my contribution to the game meant nothing.

Essentially: It isn't the "what is done" that is problematic in the scenarios I am arguing against ... it is the "why it was done". The game works best when the DM, during a session strives to be an impartial judge implementing the plans they made before the game and adjusting as the PCs influence the story. The DM should not be trying to save the PCs, punish the PCs or anything of the sort ... they should just be moving things forward as set up when planning, and as necessary to respond to what the PCs do.

If the DM protects the players ... that takes away the agency of the players and the luck of the game ... leaving what is left as just the DM playing with themselves and having the players watch. If the DM fudges things to add more challenging stuff to the encounter because the players/PCs outsmarted their plan ... that again steals the agency of the players by negating their good work. If the DM handwaves away the death of the players just to keep the toys on the table ... again, it makes the role of the players meaningless.

 

[Quickleaf]

Thank you--I feel this is a point that isn't made often enough. So many "gamemaster advice" articles and videos just state "Your players need to fear character death in order to keep the game from being dull" as a truism, without ever considering that the underlying issue is actually stakes and that stakes other than death can exist.

I run for three different groups, and at least one of them absolutely hates risking character death. To the point that they become boringly overcautious and refuse to interact with the environment if they are afraid for their characters' lives. The game is much more fun for all of us if I assure them they aren't going to lose their characters unless they are ready to.

Yeah, I lean pretty old school and I guess I qualify as grognard, so definitely lots of folks in the OSR have disagreed with me on the death thing. But to be honest, most RPGs don't give any word count to giving examples of other stakes beyond those implied directly in the rules - it's a skill that most GMs are left to learn by their own devices. So it's really understandable why some folks have that opinion.

The Run a Game website has a nice graphic describing four tiers of escalating stakes from their 2018 August blog post:

 

[Vaalingrade]

Character Death?

No thanks.

For one, I'm someone who invests in their character and their story and finds stories more interesting when it's about characters. I find random, unexpected character death to be a detriment to that story because it's going to leave unsatisfying dangling threads.

For another.... well I spent my teen years watching the aftermath of Steven King's 'when in doubt, kill a character' advice being taken out of its native genre and used to force emotional responses in so, so many stories that would have been much better without, followed by what Game of Thrones did to fantasy in particular and... I'm deathed out, man. I don't feel anything but hollow resentment for the attempt at manipulating my emotions when I see a character die anything but a death that ties up their arc in a well orchestrated way that has an actual impact. The shock and awe doesn't even make me angry anymore, just tired, and basically D&D with my group, which doesn't really do character death has become my escapism for the increasing nihilistic bloodthirst in my other escapism.

 

[Larnievc]

I can't invest in a character I'm constantly afraid I'm going to lose.

Doesn’t knowing that you are not going to die without your agreement reduce any sense of verisimilitude and achievement your guy’s adventure has?

Anyone can write a story but only a game like D&D can have one spontaneously develop due to the inherent randomness of a dice bound game.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Using allies, magic, etc... to turn back death is perfectly fine - but again, only if it makes sense and has been set up. It is part of the game world - it should be used.

What I am saying is that contrivance to protect the PCs is bad ... and I see it a lot as a player.

Okay. So what about where it isn't contrivance? Even if it isn't explicitly prepared for in advance, if room is left to make it a reasonable adaptation, is that somehow a problem? E.g. the next bit (clipped out), about the hostage-taking thing. There is almost always a reason to take hostages. Information, at the very least. Unless the enemy has a standing policy against hostage-taking (which would be an odd thing for a DM who wants to avoid random, permanent, irrevocable character deaths), most places would see the value of squeezing intel out of someone.

But what about, for example, a situation the character actually does die--and the DM works toward a reasonable justification for a resurrection/revival? Is that still "contrivance" if they work to provide such an option to you when your character has died?

Essentially: It isn't the "what is done" that is problematic in the scenarios I am arguing against ... it is the "why it was done". The game works best when the DM, during a session strives to be an impartial judge implementing the plans they made before the game and adjusting as the PCs influence the story. The DM should not be trying to save the PCs, punish the PCs or anything of the sort ... they should just be moving things forward as set up when planning, and as necessary to respond to what the PCs do.

Except that the DM can never be an impartial judge. They must always be partial to some degree, because they want the players to enjoy the experience. To be totally impartial would mean being uncaring about the players' experience. And "as necessary to respond to what the PCs do"--that's precisely what I'm referring to above. A character dies. The DM responds by doing the work--not just "handwaving"--so that a return or revival is plausible, not just fiat declared.

If the DM protects the players ... that takes away the agency of the players and the luck of the game ... leaving what is left as just the DM playing with themselves and having the players watch. If the DM fudges things to add more challenging stuff to the encounter because the players/PCs outsmarted their plan ... that again steals the agency of the players by negating their good work. If the DM handwaves away the death of the players just to keep the toys on the table ... again, it makes the role of the players meaningless.

Believe me, I hate fudging of all forms--I've been quite clear on that.

My problem is, the complaints I always see boil down to--well, what you've described here. "Handwaves away." "Contrivance." They characterize things as ALWAYS being maximally intrusive. Is it still a problem when one works to make it completely unintrusive? Is it a problem if the DM tells you that's what they do--build actual justifications for bringing the character back, not just "because I said so"? Assuming you're interested, of course. (Originally I hadn't mentioned that, but it occurred to me that someone might insinuate "oh so now it's being forced down my throat?!" I would normally assume that, in this context, "only if the player is cool with bringing the character back" is presumed, but...well. I've been on ENWorld long enough to know better, sadly.)

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Doesn’t knowing that you are not going to die without your agreement reduce any sense of verisimilitude and achievement your guy’s adventure has?

Doesn't knowing that the characters of a novel aren't going to die without the author getting a good story out of it reduce any sense of verisimilitude and satisfaction from reading a story?

So, no, it really doesn't. Failure is so much more than death--death is, in fact, one of the most boring and trivial forms of failure. I much prefer when failure actually stings, and death doesn't sting.

I want good story, good roleplay, emotional and personal experiences worth the time I invest into the game. Doesn't matter whether character creation takes five hours or five minutes. I want good story. The focus character dying pointlessly isn't good story. Thus, I'm not interested in seeing that. A non-pointless death--a death that has value, a death that achieves something, a death that was in some way "earned" whether by valor or stupidity or narrative impact or whatever else--is something I'm very, very much here for. Hence I am opposed, as I said, to deaths that are all three of random, permanent, and irrevocable. Remove any one of those three elements, and I'm almost certainly on board--because that actually USES the death to fuel the story, rather than unceremoniously crushing the story like an untasted fruit in a hydraulic press.

Anyone can write a story but only a game like D&D can have one spontaneously develop due to the inherent randomness of a dice bound game.

And death is literally the one and only way to have randomness? Even if I did value randomness that highly (which I don't), that would be simply false. There are plenty of other ways spontaneity and randomness can manifest in a game.

More importantly? I don't value randomness that highly. What I do value highly is the dilemma. The decision-point, where a player agonizes over what the right choice is. The slow, creping realization that you've become something you hate--or that you've grown a heart when you thought all you had was a stone. The thrill of dark temptation. The rage of being manipulated...and how easy it is to lash out, even when you know lashing out is probably what your manipulator expects. Those are the moments which make roleplaying (whether freeform or as part of a roleplaying game) enjoyable. That's why I enjoy both computer roleplaying games and TTRPGs; the latter is rarer and sweeter, but the former is still good, even though I have the capacity to reload a save.

That's what I come to the table for. Well, that and the gameplay challenge, solving the puzzle presented to us--or recognizing when the best choice is to flee. Death as a source of tension is almost never relevant to me--because there IS no tension in it to me. As soon as the character is dead, what do I have left to care about? My investment in the story has just been deleted!

It's like asking someone why they use save files in a 4x strategy game. "Don't you want the tension of potentially losing everything?" No! I don't! That would make the last three hours of play a completely pointless waste of time!

 

[GrimCo]

Different people prefer different styles.

To use video game analogy. Some people play them on easy mode. They are in it for the story. They enjoy interactions, plot twists and combat challenge is secondary. Other people like to play games in Hardcore mode. One shot. No revives, no reloads. Part of fun for those people is challenge of survival. Those are extreme ends, but game lethality is slinging scale. It's just about sliding it to the right degree for people at the table. Only problem arises if you have at the same table players who like easy mode and hardcore mode. Those just don't mesh together.

 

[S'mon]

been thinking... this might be a bit of a shock coming from and old school player like me, but im wondering if the way the modern dnd game is played, where its so character or story driven -if it would be better do away with character death. or let the player decide what happens.

That isn't a game I'd be interested in GMing, but it's a style that can work for some campaigns I think.

 

[Larnievc]

Doesn't knowing that the characters of a novel aren't going to die without the author getting a good story out of it reduce any sense of verisimilitude and satisfaction from reading a story?

So, no, it really doesn't. Failure is so much more than death--death is, in fact, one of the most boring and trivial forms of failure. I much prefer when failure actually stings, and death doesn't sting.

I want good story, good roleplay, emotional and personal experiences worth the time I invest into the game. Doesn't matter whether character creation takes five hours or five minutes. I want good story. The focus character dying pointlessly isn't good story. Thus, I'm not interested in seeing that. A non-pointless death--a death that has value, a death that achieves something, a death that was in some way "earned" whether by valor or stupidity or narrative impact or whatever else--is something I'm very, very much here for. Hence I am opposed, as I said, to deaths that are all three of random, permanent, and irrevocable. Remove any one of those three elements, and I'm almost certainly on board--because that actually USES the death to fuel the story, rather than unceremoniously crushing the story like an untasted fruit in a hydraulic press.


And death is literally the one and only way to have randomness? Even if I did value randomness that highly (which I don't), that would be simply false. There are plenty of other ways spontaneity and randomness can manifest in a game.

More importantly? I don't value randomness that highly. What I do value highly is the dilemma. The decision-point, where a player agonizes over what the right choice is. The slow, creping realization that you've become something you hate--or that you've grown a heart when you thought all you had was a stone. The thrill of dark temptation. The rage of being manipulated...and how easy it is to lash out, even when you know lashing out is probably what your manipulator expects. Those are the moments which make roleplaying (whether freeform or as part of a roleplaying game) enjoyable. That's why I enjoy both computer roleplaying games and TTRPGs; the latter is rarer and sweeter, but the former is still good, even though I have the capacity to reload a save.

That's what I come to the table for. Well, that and the gameplay challenge, solving the puzzle presented to us--or recognizing when the best choice is to flee. Death as a source of tension is almost never relevant to me--because there IS no tension in it to me. As soon as the character is dead, what do I have left to care about? My investment in the story has just been deleted!

It's like asking someone why they use save files in a 4x strategy game. "Don't you want the tension of potentially losing everything?" No! I don't! That would make the last three hours of play a completely pointless waste of time!

I do see where you are coming from. But let me ask you about the combat in your games. What purpose does it have?