D&D 5E Do PCs at your table have script immunity?

[overgeeked]

Truth be told... the annoying part for me isn't that my players don't think death can happen and thus take reckless actions knowing it'll work out... it's the few that believe that death is SO likely that their PCs refuse to actually take any risks at all and make their fellow party members do it for them all the time instead. You have an armored tank PC on the table, so the Ranger PC says "Oh good!" and spends all their time hiding and firing at range so that they don't get hurt-- even though they also have a really good AC and almost just as much hit points. But they still think they are a fragile flower and heaven forbid anyone sneaks through the brush to engage them. It's okay that the heavily-armored PC goers to 0 HP almost every fight because they're the only ones taking most of the hits, but you make one attack one the Ranger and suddenly they're all sullen and saying "Well, I'm dead." Sometimes I have to slap some sense into them by saying things like "Hey! Your tank is down and unconscious in the middle of the field and there are still 4 enemies around him. If you don't actually get down there and draw some attacks away from him, they're gonna kill this guy. Get a set of guts and get in there for once in your life, you whiny bastard!"

This kind of thing is where a lot of my disdain for the "winning and losing the board game" comes in... some players just put too much stock in "winning" by keeping their character alive at all costs that makes them do things that narratively don't make sense. They'll let their fellow party members get the crap kicked out of them without problem, so long as they don't get hurt. But as I tell them... if you and your best friend went out looking for a fight and your best friend started losing once you found one... are you REALLY going to run away and hide just because YOU might get hurt? If that's the case then why the hell did you go out looking for a fight in the first place?!?" Either play the narrative, or keep your PC home. Because it's not the other player's jobs to take all the risk while you get the rewards.

No risk, no rewards.

When I have to deal with situations like that I just kill the tank. Then the enemy melee fighters go after the ranger. The players learn real quick that they actually have to work as a team or they all die. Most players only need that once or twice before they learn the lesson and stop being so precious. Or they continue being that precious at someone else's table. Either way, that's a win as far as I'm concerned.

 

[Ulorian - Agent of Chaos]

No risk, no rewards.

When I have to deal with situations like that I just kill the tank. Then the enemy melee fighters go after the ranger. The players learn real quick that they actually have to work as a team or they all die. Most players only need that once or twice before they learn the lesson and stop being so precious. Or they continue being that precious at someone else's table. Either way, that's a win as far as I'm concerned.

I admire and appreciate the sentiment that's being expressed here. The angry yapping Yorkie 'overly aggressive yet simultaneously non-threatening' vibe I'm getting from the tone of this post is a bit off-putting though.

 

[Arilyn]

If really depends on the game. I think the important piece is whether there are consequences. If the game is a hex/dungeon crawl in search of treasure, then yes, death is on the table. If the game is more driven by player goals and failure can result in loss of loved ones or a villain achieving their nefarious goals, or characters having to live with the guilt of not saving the village from the dragon, then you don't need the constant fear of death to give your game tension.

There are many very creative ways to make players squirm that does not result in death but the players must be invested in these kinds of stakes. I think that's why this continues to be an argument here on the boards. For some death is the only consequence that matters. Other players suffer the sting of failure if their actions causes death or strife. And there is plenty of intensity in games where players are deeply involved in their characters' motivations.

 

[Blue]

It always seems to me the people enthusiastiac about death possibility in these discussions aren’t the people doing the dying. Or aren’t the people that spent months working on a backstory For a promised year plus campaign.

As a player I have asked more than one DM asked them to increase the risk and challenge of fights because the lack of tension made them boring. If we're definitely going to win, reduce it to a single roll so it doesn't take 30-45 minutes of the session. If you want to take that chunk of our 3-3.5 hour weeknight session, make it meaningful.

Oh, and I'm usually the one who submits the longest backstories. Proof: Just yesterday we finished up helping TwoSix do a stat draft, and for a character I'll never play I still did this for background: D&D 5E - Help playtest my fantasy stat draft!

 

[Ulorian - Agent of Chaos]

As a player I have asked more than one DM asked them to increase the risk and challenge of fights because the lack of tension made them boring. If we're definitely going to win, reduce it to a single roll so it doesn't take 30-45 minutes of the session. If you want to take that chunk of our 3-3.5 hour weeknight session, make it meaningful.

Oh, and I'm usually the one who submits the longest backstories. Proof: Just yesterday we finished up helping TwoSix do a stat draft, and for a character I'll never play I still did this for background: D&D 5E - Help playtest my fantasy stat draft!

Just checked out the back story you posted. Amazing! Really. Any table would be lucky to have you.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

I admire and appreciate the sentiment that's being expressed here. The angry yapping Yorkie vibe I'm getting from the tone of this post is a bit off-putting though.

Mod Note:

I’m failing to discern a reading of “angry yapping Yorkie vibe” that isn’t making it personal, contrary to the site’s ToS. Don’t repeat this error.

 

[DEFCON 1]

No risk, no rewards.

When I have to deal with situations like that I just kill the tank. Then the enemy melee fighters go after the ranger. The players learn real quick that they actually have to work as a team or they all die. Most players only need that once or twice before they learn the lesson and stop being so precious. Or they continue being that precious at someone else's table. Either way, that's a win as far as I'm concerned.

For me, the only downside to this though is you are killing off the tank, which means the wrong person is getting the raw end of the deal in my opinion. As I mentioned in my first post, my tables have enough players (and thus PCs with healing) that the odds of actually getting to that TPK are long. So even though the tank bites it, the ranger-type player never actually reaches the point where they too are at risk (let alone more than once and thus establishing the point). Instead, they get to still live while the tank has to either hope to get raised or make a new PC.

I mean if I really wanted to try and make some sort of point it would need to be lots of fights where the enemies all seem to arrive out from the edges and go right after the rear-guard and ranged characters while avoiding the front-line. Which, if I was trying a 'me-vs-them' thing, then sure I could do that. But narratively I just can't justify that metagame enemy action occur so often as to try and stick it to the ranger. It makes little sense, so I don't do it.

Truth be told... usually my way of coaxing those types of players along is to change up character creation format for each new campaign so that they can't play their tried-and-true archetype each and every time. The 'roll in order' stat method can do wonder in that regard when they roll high on STR and/or CON and playing melee in the upcoming game is the only real choice.

 

[Baldurs_Underdark]

This is an important point of discussion at the Session Zero!

I have two groups, and two answers. (Options 1 and 3).

 

[Nefermandias]

This is an important point of discussion at the Session Zero!

I have two groups, and two answers. (Options 1 and 3).

So, it seems D&D 5e is the first game I know of where you have to negotiate with the players beforehand if they are allowed to lose. Maybe it's time to take the "G" out of RPG and everybody will be happy.

 

[Vaalingrade]

So, it seems D&D 5e is the first game I know of where you have to negotiate with the players beforehand if they are allowed to lose.

Death's not the only way to lose, just the most disruptive, annoying or distasteful to some people.

Also, pretty much all previous editions had some level of mutual respect and comraderie between all players at the table to achieve a common desired game style. There never was a time when the DM was undisputed ruler of their group.