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

[Shiroiken]

I've played in a game with script immunity and hated it. We found out by making a very poor tactical decision, but suffered no consequences because of it. This led the other players into attempting more and more foolish actions, none of which mattered. We might be defeated, but we could always withdraw, attempting again later. Without the fear of death, there's no heroism in the game.

 

[Lanefan]

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.

I'm both (as player in the first instance and DM in the second), and the characters - as I said earlier - are free to die whenever they like.

 

[Lanefan]

We’ll, like I said, it’s a discussion, cause I feel like its a rare group tha says oh, you died. Sucks, you’re out till we finish this campaign, we’ll call you in 8 months When it’s done.

Why in the nine hells does a character death force a player out of the game for eight months?

Can the player not roll up a new character? Is revival magic not available in the setting to get the first one back? Something seems amiss here...

 

[Nefermandias]

In my experience, most people's approach to death doesn't vary whether they're the player or DM. It's more about how they view stakes and how they view investment in their character.

Typically, people who like death view it as the ultimate or most important stake (or even the only one) and/or put the onus of those stakes on the player rather than the character. They also are much more likely to not be so attached to their character and just ready to roll a new one. Not universal obviously (I'm sure someone will write at least five paragraphs berating me on that point despite this very disclaimer), so I think it's unfair to them to suggest they prefer lethality because they're not doing the dying.

That's why in my case, those five pages backstories go straight into the paper shredder.

Heck, I have started to tell my players to not write backstories at all until their characters are sufficiently formed in their heads and they are comfortable role playing them.

Memo to the Players #2: Portraying Characters

I’ve decided it’s not enough for me to teach you how to run less-worse games. Now, I’m doing your job too. I’m teaching your players how to play role-playing games. Not the …

theangrygm.com

 

[Sepulchrave II]

My policy for the last 20+ years has been to replace "dead" with "defeated."

How players handle that is up to them. Sometimes dead, sometimes unconscious, sometimes captured etc.

 

[pming]

Hiya!

It's not my job to keep a D&D character alive (PC or NPC). It's my job to provide a "realistically predictable fantasy setting the Players an rely on in order to make reasonable decisions for their PC's...barring 'unusual circumstances'". It is through this "believability in the world" that I defer to that lets the Players tell the story of their Characters; I'm only here to facilitate the unfolding of the ever-changing narrative. ... ... This means I don't "save" characters from death. And my Players know it. So they are cautious when they should be, bold when they think they have the edge, and run for the hills when they know they are overmatched.

Basically... I'm a "Killer DM" by todays standards.

EDIT: That said, this is only for D&D type games and most others that don't make some other method of "PC survivability" desirable. For example, PC's don't die without the Players approval AND group acceptance of that death when I run my "SUPERS!" campaign (superhero RPG), or my MSHAS (Marvel RPG; "FASERIP" version from the 80's). Some sci-fi games are "PC death if it makes sense"; Star Frontiers, The Expanse, and Alternity fit into this. And some fantasy/other RPG's where PC creation is in-depth and involved I will often use "Fate Points" where the Player has a finite amount of "Get out of Jail/Death Free" points... IF they can work in a survivable narrative; HARP, Rolemaster and Harnmaster come to mind. But usually...I err towards "Let the Dice fall where they may..." type of GM'ing.

^_^

Paul L. Ming

 

[Plaguescarred]

To my eyes in D&D PCs can die for any reason, be it foolishness, back luck etc. I am not a killer DM, nor will i hold punches. They have chances to reverse it as they get access to spells, magic items or NPCs. The spell Revivify makes death in 5E must less likely once a party get access to it. It doesn't make them unkilleable, but the most common deaths resulting in combat can be avoided.

As in anything, too much or too little of something can diminish the weight of consequences. The grittyness aspect of a campaign should first be discussed in session 0 to lay down expectations. To me, what's important is the threat of death, more than death itself. If i can put combat encounters or trap challenges togheter, and make them feel the stress of death, then i have succeded, wether a character dies or not.

If characters never come close to die, they won't feel that threatened and if they die too easily, they'll feel like character investment becomes trivial since they don't survive or last long enought.

Striking a good balance is thus crucial to me.

 

[Jacob Lewis]

I get where you're coming from, but the G in RPG stands for game.

Oh, you didn't know? The RP stands for Risk Prevention.

 

[Morrus]

No, not at all. But I am generally rooting for them, though.

 

[S'mon]

I was recently reading an older RPG and came to a part about "script immunity". Basically, the PCs aren't supposed to die unless it is necessary for the story being told. It got me thinking about something that has bothered me with D&D for a while now (particularly in 5E). I feel like the PCs aren't supposed to die, and I have heard how several groups now house-rule TPKs turn into captures, or the "it was all a dream" fake-out when PCs die, etc. Many DMs don't like bad luck killing off a PC unless they were doing something foolish (I've been in this position before as DM).

I know D&D is not about "winning" or "losing", but about the adventure, challenge, and story being told. However, lately I feel like a story that is already meant to be "successful" or "won" is not worth the telling. I have no interest in running a game where the players actually expect things to be ok. Where is the excitement if they believe the PCs will be ok--somehow...? Even if you have other goals where the PCs fail--it might not be heroic--but they are still there to try again.

I also understand most players don't want to invest a lot of time and energy into a PC who can die at any time. There are several reasons why it can be disruptive to the game, as well. But I have found IME that this leads to players taking chances which border on foolhardy, valiantly going forth instead of taking the time to plan, investigate, etc. a situation.

I once was part of a team developing a RPG called Mortality, because it was very lethal--combat should be avoided whenever possible. But D&D is so very combat-oriented at most tables a very lethal version wouldn't be well accepted IMO.

Anyway, these are just some thoughts and I was wondering in anyone else is experiencing similar things. Thanks for your time and any responses.

I am between No and No (mostly), but voted No as I definitely perma kill far more PCs than any other GM I know. I am somewhat influenced by genre so in a game with a pulp fantasy feel a PC might get captured and have a chance to escape. But in a regular dnd game they are slain or worse.