Lanefan
Victoria Rules
That one's straight out of 1e RAW. I've had it all along, and only one character has ever got close enough to have to worry about it (starting Con 11, has died 9 times, some or the revivals didn't cost him a Con point)
D&D General Do players even like the risk of death?
- Thread starter Asisreo
- Start date
p_johnston
Adventurer
So when I read this post my mind went to why the overwhelming majority of my Skyrim playthroughs end. After about 50 hours I end up with a character who is massively overpowered and impossible to kill as long as I make the most minimal amount of effort. Pretty soon after that the game becomes boring and I stop playing.
D&D is the same. Players always need a risk of failure and that risk of failure has to come with a sever enough consequence that they will try their best to avoid it. Once the Players realize failure has little to no risk the will quickly become bored of the game. Because so much of D&D is focused around fighting the most common and easiest consequence is death.
D&D is the same. Players always need a risk of failure and that risk of failure has to come with a sever enough consequence that they will try their best to avoid it. Once the Players realize failure has little to no risk the will quickly become bored of the game. Because so much of D&D is focused around fighting the most common and easiest consequence is death.
loverdrive
Prophet of the profane (She/Her)
I'd say, death being a choice is much more interesting than it being a risk.
I don't think this really addresses the point. I effectively asked why folks have games structured so that the only consequence the players care about is death.
Your answer amounts to, "because that's the only lasting mechanical consequence provided in the official rules"? The rules do not give us any other structure, so this is the one we use?
A fair point for new GMs. But on a site full of homebrewers, rules-hackers, and adventure creators, who apply lots of imaginative stuff that isn't in the published rules, it seems... an inadequate reason. Folks can come up with alternate classes, and whole new magic systems, but... they couldn't possibly use consequences other than death, because there are no rules for it?
p_johnston
Adventurer
So this is exactly what I do in most of my games. I've given people rings that give them a limited amount of automatic resurrections and time resets when they die (so they can fail but they know it's limited). My current game has the characters participating in an in universe game so every time they die they get rest with a points penalty.
I will say that I understand why the core rules have only deaht as a consequence. Death is an easy consequence in the same way that combat is easy to implement mechanically. It is very easy to make a structured system where the character has X health and when they reach 0 they have Y consequence (Y being death). It's much harder to makes rules for a more nebulous fail state such as "The princess was Sacrificed." The other easy options are to take away something like a magic item (which doesn't work as a baseline in a system where magic items aren't a baseline) or to have some sort of injury system (which can very easily just turn into a death spiral).
So, as an example of what I mean... we can replace death with consequences as worldbuilding.
Back in the day, I found the resurrections mechanics were... dull, and several other things. I found a way to adapt them as a world-element, without changing the spells.
In my usual D&D games, it isn't actually hard to find a divine spellcaster who will bring your character back from the dead, even if you are poor. Because coming back from the dead requires a small bit of divine intervention, whatever god is acting on your behalf gets service from you. Unless you have already been of great service to the deity in question, you came back with a geas/quest to accomplish something that serves the deity's ends.
Boom, instant consequences. You (and likely the rest of the party) have to hare off on some side-quest, taking substantial risks of life, resources, and time, because you died. And, as a GM, I have an instant plot hook to use as I see fit! Bonus!
Back in the day, I found the resurrections mechanics were... dull, and several other things. I found a way to adapt them as a world-element, without changing the spells.
In my usual D&D games, it isn't actually hard to find a divine spellcaster who will bring your character back from the dead, even if you are poor. Because coming back from the dead requires a small bit of divine intervention, whatever god is acting on your behalf gets service from you. Unless you have already been of great service to the deity in question, you came back with a geas/quest to accomplish something that serves the deity's ends.
Boom, instant consequences. You (and likely the rest of the party) have to hare off on some side-quest, taking substantial risks of life, resources, and time, because you died. And, as a GM, I have an instant plot hook to use as I see fit! Bonus!
I think that this is a fascinating question!
I would start by stipulating that Players, almost universally, do not like dying. That's obvious, right? At best, it's an inconvenience (waiting to get resurrected), at worst, it's a disaster (losing a favorite character and starting over).
In fact, that's why you seldom see "perma-deaths" in fictional works of an ongoing nature; you don't want to lose that sense of identification you've had with a fictional character. As much as many people can discuss how awesome it was that some TV program "kept it real" by killing off a character (usually one played by an actor in a RL contract dispute), most people tend to dislike it.
Which brings us to the question of D&D. At some point, either the DM is providing the characters with "plot armor," through calibration of encounters, or not. And this gets to the bigger debate- sort of a rule utilitarianism for both the DM and Players.
Neither the DM nor the Players wants a Player death or ... a TPK. Ever.
But disallowing the possibility tends to de-stabilize the game; it is no longer a "game," and becomes more akin to wish-fulfillment (within the scope of D&D - other rules systems are, of course, different). It is all well and good to pretend that there are other consequences and stakes involved through the creation of narrative drama and what passes for the feels within the game, but unless you severely modify the game, the basic core premises of D&D (zero-to-hero, XP for killin' stuff, get rich or die tryin') make it all reward, no risk. Which ends up not being fun after a while.
Look, it's great to play Civilization, and constantly save the game every turn so I can't make a wrong decision; but that's not really playing or winning. If I need to see how awesome I am, I don't need to play D&D on easy mode, I just need to look in the mirror.
I would start by stipulating that Players, almost universally, do not like dying. That's obvious, right? At best, it's an inconvenience (waiting to get resurrected), at worst, it's a disaster (losing a favorite character and starting over).
In fact, that's why you seldom see "perma-deaths" in fictional works of an ongoing nature; you don't want to lose that sense of identification you've had with a fictional character. As much as many people can discuss how awesome it was that some TV program "kept it real" by killing off a character (usually one played by an actor in a RL contract dispute), most people tend to dislike it.
Which brings us to the question of D&D. At some point, either the DM is providing the characters with "plot armor," through calibration of encounters, or not. And this gets to the bigger debate- sort of a rule utilitarianism for both the DM and Players.
Neither the DM nor the Players wants a Player death or ... a TPK. Ever.
But disallowing the possibility tends to de-stabilize the game; it is no longer a "game," and becomes more akin to wish-fulfillment (within the scope of D&D - other rules systems are, of course, different). It is all well and good to pretend that there are other consequences and stakes involved through the creation of narrative drama and what passes for the feels within the game, but unless you severely modify the game, the basic core premises of D&D (zero-to-hero, XP for killin' stuff, get rich or die tryin') make it all reward, no risk. Which ends up not being fun after a while.
Look, it's great to play Civilization, and constantly save the game every turn so I can't make a wrong decision; but that's not really playing or winning. If I need to see how awesome I am, I don't need to play D&D on easy mode, I just need to look in the mirror.
FrogReaver
The most respectful and polite poster ever
IMO. It’s more about the players than the DM. Players get to choose what they care about and no DM is going to be able to make them care about something they don’t. Generally speaking character death is one thing most players care about most the time and it’s a threat present in most every encounter and so it makes a good default consequence.
Sometimes players care about other things than PC death - but even when they do - the immediate context of ‘this encounter’ may preclude that thing being targeted. And even when it is targeted there’s nothing saying the player will value that thing more than the life of their PC - making threatening their PCs life still a ‘better’ option.
Arilyn
Hero
I had a character come back from the dead owing service to the death goddess. Waiting for that to come due was tense and worrisome.
That's fine early 5e, but Is that really a risk when there is 1-2 characters capable of casting healing word to yoyo someone back up as a bonus action without breaking stride in their battle plan sor is it more of a theoretical possibility? Is it still a risk if the conditions needed to eat that risk are mostly only plausible on a theoretical level?
Similar Threads
