Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="DND_Reborn" data-source="post: 8476473" data-attributes="member: 6987520">I was recently reading an older RPG and came to a part about &quot;script immunity&quot;. 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&amp;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 &quot;it was all a dream&quot; 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&amp;D is not about &quot;winning&quot; or &quot;losing&quot;, but about the adventure, challenge, and story being told. However, lately I feel like a story that is already meant to be &quot;successful&quot; or &quot;won&quot; 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&amp;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.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="DND_Reborn, post: 8476473, member: 6987520"] I was recently reading an older RPG and came to a part about "script immunity". Basically, the PCs [I]aren't supposed to die[/I] 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 [I]Mortality[/I], because it was [I]very lethal[/I]--combat should be avoided whenever possible. But D&D is so very combat-oriented at most tables a [I]very lethal[/I] 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. [/QUOTE]

Verification