D&D 5E How many PCs have you had die?

[Morinth]

Perhaps it is some outlandish talent, or perhaps just training from having been a DM so long, but building a character (non-mechanically - just the getting into the character and playing it) takes less time and effort than deciding what I am going to eat for my next meal.
It has come off as saying something entirely different because of the words and phrasing you've used.
I both see where you are coming from, as I am the guy at the table that gets to play in only 1 out of every 30 or so campaigns because I am the DM and I also manage to play more characters in each of those campaigns than anyone else (sometimes even collectively) because the characters end up dying so I know that it can wear on a person (like when I played 7 characters in a 4th edition campaign that only lasted 4 months, and the last three each only in one session each) - and that your estimation of iserith as a DM that is going to "go through my carefully crafted characters like Kleenex," isn't all that accurate since his play style allows a player wanting to avoid dead characters ample opportunity (in both choice and die rolls) to not have a character die.

His rule about having back-up characters on-deck is not because he has a goal of making the player use those back-ups, but because having those back-ups on hand removes the only real negative from character death: the player being unable to play for a prolonged period of time as they draw up another character.

To be fair, if I'm playing Sylvia the Bard for an extended period of time, she will have some kind of memorable characterization by the end simply by virtue of the fact that I can't not imbue my characters with some kind of personality. But if Sylvia the Bard lasted for two game sessions, then I got to play Cindy the Sorcerer for four gaming session, Alice the Wizard for three, and Mavis the Warlock for five, by the time I get to Daphne the Paladin, she's not really going to have much in the way of layers.

 

[Lanefan]

Go sports!

To me the game isn't about dice rolls and shining in combat and all of that. It's about a group of people discovering a world and going through trials and tribulations and becoming a team, or even, dare I say it, a family. It isn't a competition, the GM isn't the opponent, and my fellow players aren't vying for the spotlight. It's a cooperative activity, and combat is certainly part of the story, but it's the side dish, not the entree.

Which sounds like...and please correct me if I'm wrong here...your group is very much about the story, whether designed by them or by you. Here we're more about what's in the moment right now - this battle, this meeting, this adventure - and the story writes itself (sometimes in rather unforeseen ways) as things go along.

In my view, a player character death that is just a series of bad dice rolls in a random encounter is a major letdown.

Sure, but that doesn't mean it shouldn't happen. Luck can be a female dog sometimes. Just think of it as a very much expanded and longer-term version of the "funnel method" of character generation from DCCRPG.

If characters are constantly getting killed, to me it's a sign that the enemies are too overpowered.

Or, it means the party isn't picking its fights very well and-or is getting in its own way when trouble starts.

Yes, GM, you can kill the players at anytime you want, you can have a meteor literally fall out of the sky and one-shot the paladin in his shiny armor any time you want. But what kind of a story is that? Not one I want to be a part of.

Agreed, but I don't think that's what we're talking about here.

Lan-"you can say 'kill 'em all and let the gods sort 'em out', but what if the gods don't want 'em?"-efan

 

[Morinth]

Hiya!
[MENTION=6825499]Morinth[/MENTION], after reading your other replies to folks, I find myself having a bit of confusion. I understand that some players enjoy writing up background novella's for their characters, that's cool. I also understand some players enjoy hitting the books and 'learning' all the stuff their character can do and then put serious effort into learning different tricks/tactics/combo's that they can try and use if the opportunity comes up. Also cool. I also understand that some players are really heavy into the characterization/role-playing of their character during the session. Again, cool.

However... my confusion is that what I am reading into your replies is that you wouldn't do any of that if you weren't getting recognition and/or a reward for it from someone else. You've said things that basically boil down to If [the DM] isn't going to reward me for something, why bother trying? To me, personally, I find this attitude very confusion. I, for example, spend hours and hours writing up info on all manner of things for my campaign world. From flora and fauna, to unusual weather patterns, to unique monsters or terrain features in some area, and everything in between. I make notes about seemingly "pointless" NPC's (e.g., a random encounter with a traveler...I may quickly jot down Widower, lost son a year ago, wandering town to town in search of him; afraid of cats, hated parents ). Stuff that the PC's are likely never to learn about because chances are they'll say "Hi! Any dangers ahead? No? Ok, thanks! Have a nice day!" and continue down the road. But that doesn't matter to me. I do this "extra" stuff because I like to. I draw maps, colour maps, I search the web for cool artwork, I paint miniatures I'm likely never going to use. Doing it is it's own reward. I see writing up a multi-page background for a character the same way. If the DM only 'skims it or gets the broad strokes', that's fine. I don't care one way or the other because I enjoyed doing it for myself. It was fun!

Then it sounds like I haven't communicated myself accurately. It isn't about validation, it's about effort. I enjoy character stuff, I do. But if I come up with a bunch of character stuff, and the character dies within a few gaming sessions, then a lot of that stuff I came up with never really got a chance to be used. Whatever I dreamed up for Sylvia the Bard's story is just petals on the wind. I have to focus on Cindy the Sorcerer now. So maybe I don't spend quite as much time dreaming up stuff for Cindy the Sorcerer, because I know I'm going to have to prep Alice the Wizard to fill the void if Cindy gets eaten by a gelatinous cube or something. It's really about making the most of my time and mitigating any sense of disappointment I might potentially feel at Sylvia's or Cindy's or Alice's aborted character arcs.

So, when I see your posts alluding to "why bother?", and "what's the point, my PC's would all be disposable", and that sort of thing...I'm confused. Do you honestly not get any enjoyment from being creative and writing/reading/drawing stuff for fun? If you write up a three page background for a character, and nobody reads it, do you honestly feel you "wasted your time"? This is what I'm getting a feeling of. And, as I said...it's perplexing for me.

If I get to play Sylvia the Bard for a good while, and she has a memorable story, then the effort isn't wasted. If I play her three times and she trips over her lute and falls into a pit of lava, I'm going to want that half hour back.

Personally, I tell my players to put no more thought into their character than a few key elements. "Fenwick has no living relatives. He enjoys fine wine and non-vocal music. He tends to scribble in the margins of books, or on rocks, tables, or whatever is around when he's relaxing. He also doesn't trust elven folk...having bad teenage experiences with them. His favorite colour is dark green". That's enough for a 1st level character, IMHO. If the character lives past the first session or two, please expand as needed. I enjoy characters being created this way. It gives me, the DM, room to help integrate the character with the world, and gives the player opportunity to keep the character "fresh".

Anyway, i've rambled on enough.

^_^

Paul L. Ming

And see, what you're describing is pretty much exactly what I would do. Cindy the Sorcerer will have some one-line RP guidelines like this. But I won't be able to tell you name of her childhood pets and her thoughts on the political situation in Faerûn.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

If a player writes a specific family member, or worse multiple, that disapprove of their chosen way of life and establishes personalities and other details of these supporting characters - I am then capable of portraying the NPC the player designed in a way that doesn't match what the player sees in their head, which results in the player being disappointed or feeling that I have "ruined" their character's back-story... and that's after I make sure that the campaign details line up with the player's back-story details, which means I have to actually plan ahead where I would normally be able to run the entire campaign by improvising after an established start point.

Slight tangent: I have a player who likes to play Fiend pact warlocks and seems to want to have some sort of ongoing relationship with his patron. I actively dislike having powerful, interventionist NPCs, so I have yet to do as much with his patron(s) as I think he might be hoping for. This is very much like the scenario you're describing here, where the player may expect specific kinds of interactions with certain NPC family members which the DM may or may not satisfy. My question: do you or anyone else have any particularly good tips for managing this scenario?

It wasn't until I read your post that I became fully conscious of this situation as an issue, so I haven't thought extensively about how to solve it.

 

[Lanefan]

I would lose one PC at your table. My next PC would be a rogue, who simply runs away in stealth from everything that smells remotely dangerous. Said rogue would loot the bodies of the stupid PCs who aren't as genre-savvy. Profit.

So your Rogue would be just a passenger in the party. Here's to variable xp at least, where your Rogue - while eventually getting rich - might be 1st level for a long time unless it started getting involved in the battles and encounters.

Of course you'd have to fight the victorious monsters or opponents in order to retrieve said loot - and by yourself, as well - as they'll want it too; so your plan might need some fine-tuning.

Lan-"in such a game, my next character might not bother with the monsters when there's this nice rich Rogue sitting there instead"-efan

 

[Lanefan]

If I'm on my third PC in your campaign, I can pretty much guarantee you that she isn't as well thought-out and developed as my first PC was. That first PC had a backstory, a unique characterization and voice, and she interacted with the world in very character-oriented ways. I probably even created a character illustration for her. My third PC is essentially a disposable respawn, and all the other PCs are just really well-developed NPCs. If I started the game as one character, and had relationships with the other PCs as that character, and then she dies, well, so does that buy-in. Character 2 needs her own buy-in, she doesn't know these people and she doesn't care about the same things Character 1 did. And Character 3 is just along for the ride, she doesn't know these people, she doesn't care, she's just there so the player can hang out with her friends and roll some dice or whatever.

Ah, quite a different approach than mine.

Whether it's my first character in a campaign or my tenth I'll usually approach it much the same way: give it a very broad-strokes personality and motivation after seeing what the dice give me for stats to work with (e.g. Dwarf War Cleric*: loud filthy and boorish to explain the 6 in Charisma, brave to a fault and always leads the charge but wise enough to pick his spots, his personal slogan is 'fear the beard' as he has the most ridiculously overgrown and tangled beard evern seen) and let the fine-tuning come out of the run of play. Once the character's stuck around long enough to become established then maybe I'll worry about a backstory if it seems necessary; it isn't always.

* - this guy is currently in play - well into his second adventure now - and I haven't yet needed to expand on his backstory in the slightest other than knowing where he grew up...his interactions with the party have been entirely shaped by what the party does and how they interact with him.

If I really have a "choice" whether to engage in combat, I can guarantee you that I'm pretty much never going to choose to engage in combat. I will talk to NPCs until the GM is blue in the face, but I'll always run away from a fight.

A perfectly valid approach, but one that will (or certainly should) likely see you run out of the party before long and replaced with someone who will pull his-her weight when the swords start swinging while still being able to talk through trouble when needed.

If combat is an almost guaranteed death sentence, why would I ever choose it?

Maybe you wouldn't, if there's a choice; but there isn't always a choice.

How do I know this random dude isn't a 17th level ranger in disguise?

You don't. And you shouldn't. Maybe the point of that encounter is to let your group know that a) you shouldn't fight everything you meet, and b) not everything is what it seems. (and maybe c), if you treat him right you're giving yourself a potential high-powered ally for the future)

Lan-"no passengers allowed on this train"-efan

 

[LapBandit]

Getting back to the original purpose of the thread:

DMing 5E: For the 40-odd characters I've seen one TPK (5 people who attacked a vastly superior group of enemies) and 7 other deaths. Like others have said, I do not build my world for the PCs, the world is the world. If you choose to do things outside your means there is a good chance of death like the TPK I described. If you wander off into a monster-infested tunnel by yourself, your PC likely has mental issues and is going to be eaten by said monsters.

Playing 5E: Out of the 4 PCs I've played, one died in a TPK that is wholly on the DM being an asshat. I do have another that was VERY (two death saves) close to death multiple times but somehow managed to crit their last death saving throw a few times.

 

[Psikerlord#]

That's only half of the DCC rules for getting dropped to zero hp though - there is also a window of your character's level in rounds that you can receive healing and get back into the fight.

Ah yes you are right! Oh noes, DCC does have whack a mole! Still, I very much like the "body recovery" death save.

 

[Luz]

Of the top of my head, I'd say about half a dozen PCs have met their end in my 5e games.

Most memorable one was also from our most recent game. I'm running the original Slavelords series on-the-fly (straight up one-for-one conversion). The party is in Slave Pits of the Undercity, which has some dopplegangers in it and one of them infiltrated the party as a slave in need of rescue. Later, with the doppleganger still with them, the party decided to scout ahead while leaving one character alone to protect the "slave" (its a long story as to why this was decided). They even barricaded the exits so that no one could ambush them. With the rest of the party absent, the doppleganger saw his opportunity and attacked the PC, who failed on her Perception to see the attack coming. Combat ensued, and the PC put up a valiant fight, but she was eventually killed (even failing her first three death rolls in a row). The doppleganger dumped her body down a nearby dead-end tunnel, cooked up a cover story, and has now assumed the role of the dead player with the rest of the party - with the player taking control of the doppleganger to complete the ruse. Not sure how long it will take the group to figure it out, as the dead PC was a druid with many abilities the doppleganger can't pull off, but it will be interesting to see how this turns out.

 

[Morinth]

Of the top of my head, I'd say about half a dozen PCs have met their end in my 5e games.

Most memorable one was also from our most recent game. I'm running the original Slavelords series on-the-fly (straight up one-for-one conversion). The party is in Slave Pits of the Undercity, which has some dopplegangers in it and one of them infiltrated the party as a slave in need of rescue. Later, with the doppleganger still with them, the party decided to scout ahead while leaving one character alone to protect the "slave" (its a long story as to why this was decided). They even barricaded the exits so that no one could ambush them. With the rest of the party absent, the doppleganger saw his opportunity and attacked the PC, who failed on her Perception to see the attack coming. Combat ensued, and the PC put up a valiant fight, but she was eventually killed (even failing her first three death rolls in a row). The doppleganger dumped her body down a nearby dead-end tunnel, cooked up a cover story, and has now assumed the role of the dead player with the rest of the party - with the player taking control of the doppleganger to complete the ruse. Not sure how long it will take the group to figure it out, as the dead PC was a druid with many abilities the doppleganger can't pull off, but it will be interesting to see how this turns out.

That actually sounds really cool. I would love to play a character death like this.