D&D General How Often Should a PC Die in D&D 5e?

[TiQuinn]

Its not asking what "schedule" you prefer but instead at what frequency of PC death does it reach your particular desire of lethality?

What is the difference between schedule and frequency? They’re both referring to a time based metric on the basis of the DMs preference and that’s just so not how I DM.

 

[Reynard]

Hard disagree. It is not about some plot independent of the characters, the game is about the characters. And if one of their friends and comrades dies, that will affect the rest. How do they react, how do they feel? That is good source of drama. But if they all die? Then it seems rather pointless, as there is no one left to reflect on it.

The solution is that if the game is about the characters, death goes off the table. if the game is about something bigger, then all bets are off. YMMV, of course.

 

[prabe]

For games where there are lots of deep individual character stories, a TPK is almost easier to deal with than a single character death (at least fort he GM). You can pick of the A plot with a new group of heroes more easily than you can figure out what to do with all that unresolved B plot, IMO.

You seem to be suggesting the GM will be choosing what the "deep individual character stories" are. In my experience, if the characters are pursuing goals that have arisen out of their interests or desires or needs, wiping the party means the new PCs will be pursuing different goals that arise out of their interests or desires or needs. Obviously, if the GM has a story already to hand that the PCs are "experiencing" (whether that's published or self-written) the GM can just "pick up the A plot" with new characters.

 

[Jefe Bergenstein]

I have a list of options players can select when their character would die, each usable once per party per campaign. They range from being simply knocked out until the next short rest to losing a limb/eye to dying in a blaze of glory (gaining the immediate benefit of a long rest, inspiration, and resistance to all damage with the caveat the character permanently dies at the end of the encounter with no option of resurrection). Its the players choice, and they can use those options to save most NPC's should they choose. A character with revivify, raise dead, reincarnate, etc can use each of those spells once per campaign as well.

I'm running a heavily modified Abomination Vaults, we've had two "deaths" thus far by level 5, both due to very bold choices by the players, which is great. One character was incapacitated and required bedrest through the next downtime (and the player played a henchman) after they assassinated the corrupt captain of the guards and another suffered the loss of their most valuable item (a +1 glamoured breastplate) after being smooshed by a golem.

 

[TwoSix]

You seem to be suggesting the GM will be choosing what the "deep individual character stories" are. In my experience, if the characters are pursuing goals that have arisen out of their interests or desires or needs, wiping the party means the new PCs will be pursuing different goals that arise out of their interests or desires or needs. Obviously, if the GM has a story already to hand that the PCs are "experiencing" (whether that's published or self-written) the GM can just "pick up the A plot" with new characters.

Well, there's always the case where the GM has an A-plot going, but it has become intrinsically tied to one or more of the PCs, such that new characters can't logically pick it up. A marriage of several bad ideas.

 

[Reynard]

You seem to be suggesting the GM will be choosing what the "deep individual character stories" are.

I'm not sure how you get there. All I said was that if the characters have deep stories, it can be hard for the Gm to find resolutions to those stories when the PC disappears. Ostensibly there are NPCs, factions and whole chunks of the world under the auspices of the GM that must be dealt with.

Or, I guess you could just completely break any sense of verisimilitude and ignore it all.

All I was saying was that a clean slate, where a new party picks up the main quest of the campaign (if such a think even exists) is easier ON THE GM than dealing with the death of a singular PC in a heavily PC focused campaign. Is this controversial?

 

[prabe]

Well, there's always the case where the GM has an A-plot going, but it has become intrinsically tied to one or more of the PCs, such that new characters can't logically pick it up. A marriage of several bad ideas.

That seems more like a sequence of dubious decisions to me, but definitely more than one, yeah.

 

[prabe]

I'm not sure how you get there. All I said was that if the characters have deep stories, it can be hard for the Gm to find resolutions to those stories when the PC disappears. Ostensibly there are NPCs, factions and whole chunks of the world under the auspices of the GM that must be dealt with.

Or, I guess you could just completely break any sense of verisimilitude and ignore it all.

All I was saying was that a clean slate, where a new party picks up the main quest of the campaign (if such a think even exists) is easier ON THE GM than dealing with the death of a singular PC in a heavily PC focused campaign. Is this controversial?

Uh ... I'm saying that the game might not have a "main quest" that's not derived from the PCs' interests, desires, and/or needs; and if you do not have such a thing, you can't just "pick up the main quest of the campaign" with all new characters with no connection/s to the old ones. Dealing with the death of a single PC is definitely easier, if you're basing the goals of the campaign on what the PCs need/want, because you still have N-1 PCs with existing, ongoing needs/wants. Is this controversial?

 

[Imaro]

I prefer a game where there is no earthly way to calculate how often a PC "Should" die.

Its not asking you to calculate how often a PC should die...

If you have a preference for the game's lethality its asking you to express that in PC deaths per levels gained by the party.

 

[Reynard]

Uh ... I'm saying that the game might not have a "main quest" that's not derived from the PCs' interests, desires, and/or needs; and if you do not have such a thing, you can't just "pick up the main quest of the campaign" with all new characters with no connection/s to the old ones. Dealing with the death of a single PC is definitely easier, if you're basing the goals of the campaign on what the PCs need/want, because you still have N-1 PCs with existing, ongoing needs/wants. Is this controversial?

Of course it might not. But that wasn't the situation I was positing when I was making a simple "this is more inconvenient than that for the GM" statement. I made no statement whatsover about what games should be like in any capacity. I was speaking from personal experience about how singular deaths versus TPKs impact the GM. That's all.