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

[Oofta]

This line of argument always annoys me. Yes, a DM often does more "work" than the players. That is what they CHOSE to do. For many that is what they ENJOY doing. This always reads to me like the person who insists on cooking alone, enjoys cooking, then moaning about how "they slaved away at a hot stove" when if they'd just asked for help they could have gotten it.

I do put in a lot of work as a DM. I enjoy that work. I like that work. I like the opportunity to present something I made to my players. And not a single one of them owes me ANYTHING for that opportunity. They do not need to have any sort of lesser stature at the table because I had the opportunity to be creative and present them with something that brings me so much joy as I see them enjoying it at the table.

If you are so aggrieved being a DM that you need special perks and benefits to make it worthwhile? Stop DMing.

I'm not "aggrieved". But I do spend more time thinking about and designing my world and I have reasons for the decisions I've made. As DM we're all just doing the best we can to run the most fun game possible.

I have a very low rate of turnover, heck I even have two players who moved out of state (one to a different country) and asked to play remotely so I must be doing something right. Can you say the same?

 

[Chaosmancer]

Sometimes the answer is a simple yes or no. If I've considered something in depth and my answer is no, the answer is not going to change. Sometimes there is no compromise and that's okay. I'm not the DM for everyone and if I change for one person without taking into consideration the other people at the table then there's a good chance I'm making a change that 6 people out of 7 at the table won't like.

I would wager 90% of the time when it is a simple yes or no, it is either a factual matter about the rules (in which case a discussion should be had about the rules so the player understand them going forward) or it is a matter so trivial there is no reason not to say yes.

"Can I re-flavor a battleaxe as a giant meathook" is a simple yes or no question. And the answer pretty much should always be yes, because it is a simple thing with no real issues.

These sort of irreconcilable issues where there is only two possible paths and no discussion can possibly be had.... just are incredibly rare. To the point that literally, your only consistent example is "evil PC" and as I demonstrated, that is not a simple yes or no question, and a discussion can be had about it, and it is very possible to work with a group to make sure all seven of them are pretty excited about that thing.

 

[Oofta]

I would wager 90% of the time when it is a simple yes or no, it is either a factual matter about the rules (in which case a discussion should be had about the rules so the player understand them going forward) or it is a matter so trivial there is no reason not to say yes.

"Can I re-flavor a battleaxe as a giant meathook" is a simple yes or no question. And the answer pretty much should always be yes, because it is a simple thing with no real issues.

I don't have to make a ruling as DM very often but it does happen now and then. Overall I'm pretty flexible, especially when it comes to fluff changes. Doesn't mean anything as far as this discussion goes because it does happen now and then.

These sort of irreconcilable issues where there is only two possible paths and no discussion can possibly be had.... just are incredibly rare. To the point that literally, your only consistent example is "evil PC" and as I demonstrated, that is not a simple yes or no question, and a discussion can be had about it, and it is very possible to work with a group to make sure all seven of them are pretty excited about that thing.

You haven't "demonstrated" anything. Your suggestion is that either the DM allows evil PCs or the PC isn't really evil.

 

[Chaosmancer]

You didn't "show" anything. You just said the DM should change their mind and allow a player to have an evil PC or redefine evil to mean "they have an attitude but aren't really evil".

That is not what I said.

1) I said that the DM and the Player's idea of evil might be different. Therefore a conversation should be had, because the DM might not say no to the player's ACTUAL idea
2) I said that compromise might be possible. If the player wants to be "evil" for the aesthetic reasons (and yes, I had a player who did this. They wanted to play Spawn) then it is pretty easy to look at the traits they want and find a middle ground where the player can have the character they want, while avoiding the behaviors you want to avoid.

Instead you want to insist that there can be no possible discussion, because any possible discussion can lead to nothing because you are correct and have made your point clear and anyone who dislikes that can leave.

 

[Oofta]

That is not what I said.

1) I said that the DM and the Player's idea of evil might be different. Therefore a conversation should be had, because the DM might not say no to the player's ACTUAL idea

Then the player isn't really playing an evil PC.

2) I said that compromise might be possible. If the player wants to be "evil" for the aesthetic reasons (and yes, I had a player who did this. They wanted to play Spawn) then it is pretty easy to look at the traits they want and find a middle ground where the player can have the character they want, while avoiding the behaviors you want to avoid.

Then the player is still not playing an evil PC or the DM is compromising on what kind of behavior they allow.

Instead you want to insist that there can be no possible discussion, because any possible discussion can lead to nothing because you are correct and have made your point clear and anyone who dislikes that can leave.

Anyone who wants to play a truly evil PC should have read my invitation to the game where I explicitly state that I don't allow evil PCs. I'm pretty open to concepts but they have to fit with the style of game I and the other players at the table enjoy. If they don't want to do that then, no, there is no compromise.

 

[Chaosmancer]

I'm not "aggrieved". But I do spend more time thinking about and designing my world and I have reasons for the decisions I've made. As DM we're all just doing the best we can to run the most fun game possible.

I have a very low rate of turnover, heck I even have two players who moved out of state (one to a different country) and asked to play remotely so I must be doing something right. Can you say the same?

I've been stuck working a minimum wage job for years. Bet you make more money than me. Does that make you a better person? A harder worker? Smarter?

or just luckier because you didn't have your career destroyed from under you after a decade+ of work toward it and were forced to start from square one?

Yes, you have reasons for the decisions you have made. I have reasons for the decisions I made. The player who wants to try something has reasons for wanting to try that thing. The difference between you and I, is I am willing to entertain the notion that the player's concept might make the thing I made better. You are just certain that your way has made your game the best it can possibly be.

And if their idea is bad? I'm willing to tell them that I don't think it will work out, but instead of saying "this won't work, try again." I try and find a way to make it work. Because if it doesn't work because of a secret decision I made that they have no idea about.... THAT'S ON ME! That's MY problem to fix, not theirs. Because they don't know what they cannot possibly know because it is a secret in my head. And it is not fair to them to say "I have secret 'no' mines scattered about, try and make a character that doesn't trigger any of them!"when instead I could work WITH them to find a concept we are both excited and happy with. But this idea of working with a player when they come at you with an idea you don't like is CONSTANTLY met with a derisive snort from you people with long-established groups that rarely need to adapt of change anyways!

 

[Micah Sweet]

Nice side-step of the issue.

You know in many groups, that attitude wil lead to a bunch of pissed off people leaving the table and never coming back, right? It won't happen to you, I know, because none of your friends care enough and they all have multiple years of friendship to handle that, but for a group whose longest relationship is a single year of sort of knowing each other? Group will shatter like ceramic.

I don't see how that has anything to do with what they said. We're all only speaking about ourselves and our experience with others. Because that's all all we can speak to.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Then the player isn't really playing an evil PC.

And how can you know that, if you don't talk to them and see what they mean? If they go "I have an idea for an evil pc I think-" and you cut them off immediately with a "I said no evil pcs. That is no evil pcs. If you don't like it, take a hike" then how can you possibly know if their idea is something you would actually consider an evil pc?

Then the player is still not playing an evil PC or the DM is compromising on what kind of behavior they allow.

Same question. How can you know this if you don't have the discussion? And is the DM compromising? They are compromising on whether or not a player can consider their PC evil, but not on the behaviors.

 

[Oofta]

I've been stuck working a minimum wage job for years. Bet you make more money than me. Does that make you a better person? A harder worker? Smarter?

or just luckier because you didn't have your career destroyed from under you after a decade+ of work toward it and were forced to start from square one?

Yes, you have reasons for the decisions you have made. I have reasons for the decisions I made. The player who wants to try something has reasons for wanting to try that thing. The difference between you and I, is I am willing to entertain the notion that the player's concept might make the thing I made better. You are just certain that your way has made your game the best it can possibly be.

And if their idea is bad? I'm willing to tell them that I don't think it will work out, but instead of saying "this won't work, try again." I try and find a way to make it work. Because if it doesn't work because of a secret decision I made that they have no idea about.... THAT'S ON ME! That's MY problem to fix, not theirs. Because they don't know what they cannot possibly know because it is a secret in my head. And it is not fair to them to say "I have secret 'no' mines scattered about, try and make a character that doesn't trigger any of them!"when instead I could work WITH them to find a concept we are both excited and happy with. But this idea of working with a player when they come at you with an idea you don't like is CONSTANTLY met with a derisive snort from you people with long-established groups that rarely need to adapt of change anyways!

What's your point? I've been quite popular as a DM, have no problem attracting or keeping players. You have a different approach and that's fine. I'm not criticizing your life decisions or approach to DMing. I'm simply following the guidance that has always been part of the game: the DM makes the final call.

 

[Micah Sweet]

This line of argument always annoys me. Yes, a DM often does more "work" than the players. That is what they CHOSE to do. For many that is what they ENJOY doing. This always reads to me like the person who insists on cooking alone, enjoys cooking, then moaning about how "they slaved away at a hot stove" when if they'd just asked for help they could have gotten it.

I do put in a lot of work as a DM. I enjoy that work. I like that work. I like the opportunity to present something I made to my players. And not a single one of them owes me ANYTHING for that opportunity. They do not need to have any sort of lesser stature at the table because I had the opportunity to be creative and present them with something that brings me so much joy as I see them enjoying it at the table.

If you are so aggrieved being a DM that you need special perks and benefits to make it worthwhile? Stop DMing.

By the same token, if you out in the work and make something to present to others, you're under no obligation to change it in a way you don't want to accommodate those others, and there's nothing right about "shaming" those DMs who will not do so. If a player wants something different and can't convince the DM to change it or allow them to change it, then they either accept or move on. And either choice is just fine.