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

[Oofta]

I hear this statement all the time, but no one actually defends it. They just state it as received wisdom.

I reject that received wisdom. If you want me to take it seriously, defend it.

What defense is there? That these types of questions come up every 20-30 or so hours of game play time as an estimate? It's rarely anything big, it's just me saying that they've misread the text or that the player doesn't know which way I rule something. The former happens now and then with my casual players, the latter is relatively common when people are leveling up.

So where's your evidence that it's extremely rare?

 

[Oofta]

I mean, I would love to. I love talking about the tools and techniques I've used to get things done. (Anyone who has heard me blather about my solution to the "Always Chaotic Evil" problem for my DW game knows how much I love blathering about the same silly thing.) I find it incredibly interesting and refreshing to learn about the actual game design and DM policy/approach choices used in other games or tables, when those things are really doing something. Like how I find the old-school "armor is an XP penalty you wear to improve survivability" concept, or the neo-old-school concept of "funnel" adventures, which is an incredibly clever solution to a real and thorny design problem. That sort of thing is lovely and I would much, much, much rather talk about that, both learning from others and sharing what I've learned myself.

I just keep being told that my tools and techniques cannot possibly work. That my approach is vulnerable to the worst of the worst cases, and thus is irrelevant and bad and wrong.

What tools and techniques other than "compromise"? Which means that the DM accepts, at least in part, what the player wants effectively every time while ignoring that sometimes there are clear yes/no situations.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

What's funny is that I've pitched an all dwarf party before and there's always a player or two that absolutely refuse to play them. Last time, it was the majority of players were pushing for it when discussing options, but we still had a holdout. Meanwhile I pitched an all elf campaign and absolutely every player jumped on board practically before I finished the sentence.

You definitely should allow one halfling in your dwarf party!

 

[Oofta]

You definitely should allow one halfling in your dwarf party!

But they always steal the show (and the one ring), become the central character of the campaign. Then they ultimately arbitrarily decide who deserves the treasure.

 

[Lanefan]

I’ve never seen or heard of any compromise in which all parties were happy.

I might have seen this once or twice out of thousands of opportunities.

And I’ve never known anyone say, “well, I enjoyed that game!” When there was an argument during it.

I have, on the other hand, seen this somewhat more; partly because I've at tmes had (and played with) players who actively enjoy arguing regardless of the topic.

 

[Chaosmancer]

If I pitch a campaign I include limitations and restrictions. No evil PCs for example. If someone only wants to play an evil PC and doesn't want to be part of my game, I'm not going to feel bad about it. For that matter when someone pitched a campaign with evil PCs I chose not to join, it's just not what I want out of a game.

If I pitched a dwarven campaign and someone refuses to play a dwarf I'd likely allow it, but they will have to accept that the focus of the campaign is going to be on dwarven concerns because that's what the rest of the group signed up for.

None of this really contradicts or says anything about what I was responding to, except to double down on it. Okay, you'd allow a non-dwarf character in a dwarf game. Cool. There are still limits you won't budge on. And in this moment I am not judging you, just pointing out that since that is true, it is a little harsh of Swarmkeeper to jump on "why are you assuming the conversation will not happen" when there are conversations you will not have. Making it, in the end, a fair assumption, even if the precise details of what you will not have a conversation on do not precisely match the precise details others will not have a conversation on.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Has he been married more than once in the same continuity?

Yes

 

[Chaosmancer]

Playing a mercenary looking for personal enrichment in a fantasy setting can be a fun way to explore a person and personality other than your own, or allow you to act in ways modern society or your own temperament makes difficult.

This is literally true of every single possible character archetype and offers me nothing specific. It was fun to play a prideful warrior of a jungle cult. It was interesting to explore the personality of a man seeking nothing more than to find a worthy master to serve.

Also, you changed the example. A "mercenary looking for personal enrichment" is a very different character than a callous money-grubber. I've played a mercenary looking for personal enrichment. And much like many a noir detective, sometimes they begrudgingly accepted a job for coppers, because it was the right thing to do. A callous money grubber character would scoff at such a thing and refuse to do it, potentially abandon the quest because it isn't worth it, ect.

Also, money-grubber and paladin are but two spectrum on a nigh-infinite spectrum.

And your point? 0 Kelvin and 365 kelvin are but two points on a nigh-infinite spectrum of temperature. No reason to trying living at a 0 kelvin though, is there? Just being a spectrum does not innately make one end of it worth experiencing.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Flaw in this argument: the bolded. Even when people are acting in good faith (which itself is somewhat less common than you seem to want to admit) binary either-or questions come up all the time.

And there's no such thing as compromise on a binary either-or (or yes-no) question. This is why in real life we have votes and referenda and so forth; to arrive at an aggregate majority answer that is still not a compromise.

In-game example: determined to play a Paladin, a player tries to bring one into a party. The rest of the party, in character, are each either willing to accept the Paladin or they are not. No compromise there; so the DM grabs some popcorn.....

The DM grabs popcorn? Why doesn't the DM with their ultimate authority over all things at the table simply say "No, your characters will be okay with this paladin joining the party." You do have ultimate unquestioned authority to decide this, right? You can just force the group to obey.

Or is it more complicated than "I am the DM. My word is Law."

 

[Micah Sweet]

This is literally true of every single possible character archetype and offers me nothing specific. It was fun to play a prideful warrior of a jungle cult. It was interesting to explore the personality of a man seeking nothing more than to find a worthy master to serve.

Also, you changed the example. A "mercenary looking for personal enrichment" is a very different character than a callous money-grubber. I've played a mercenary looking for personal enrichment. And much like many a noir detective, sometimes they begrudgingly accepted a job for coppers, because it was the right thing to do. A callous money grubber character would scoff at such a thing and refuse to do it, potentially abandon the quest because it isn't worth it, ect.



And your point? 0 Kelvin and 365 kelvin are but two points on a nigh-infinite spectrum of temperature. No reason to trying living at a 0 kelvin though, is there? Just being a spectrum does not innately make one end of it worth experiencing.

This is why I didn't want to "sell you" on anything. You don't seem to want to look at other options particularly. Or at least, the effort you want from me is more than I feel like putting to the task.

And all of that's fine. There are plenty of things I don't want to do either.