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

[Micah Sweet]

I get what you're saying.

I guess I'm just struggling to see the difference - in terms of verisimilitude or plausibility - between a character who is "lucky all the time" and a character who routinely survives fireballs, multiple crossbow bolts, falling off of 100-ft cliffs etc. because he has lots of hit points.

I mean, isn't having lots of hit points just being lucky all the time? Sure, you might die in theory, but is there really that much of a difference - in terms of "realism" - between "being lucky all of the time" and "being lucky almost all of the time?"

Having lots of hit points is passive mechanically. Narratively, it represents earning a degree of toughness, situational awareness, battle-saavy, and yes, luck, over an active career of adventuring. Either way, it is in the PC and based on the PCs choices and actions in the world (and the world's choices upon that PC). Deciding the PC doesn't die unless it's consensual is the player's decision, outside of the PCs control. They are not the same, the I do not want the latter.

 

[Sepulchrave II]

Having lots of hit points is passive mechanically. Narratively, it represents earning a degree of toughness, situational awareness, battle-saavy, and yes, luck, over an active career of adventuring. Either way, it is in the PC and based on the PCs choices and actions in the world (and the world's choices upon that PC). Deciding the PC doesn't die unless it's consensual is the player's decision, outside of the PCs control. They are not the same, the I do not want the latter.

Sure, that's fine. But then it's not really about "being that lucky all the time," and that probably isn't a useful way to frame it. It seems to be more about the extent to which a player's choices can or should override the dice. I feel this ground has been trod aforetimes.

 

[Lanefan]

I get what you're saying.

I guess I'm just struggling to see the difference - in terms of verisimilitude or plausibility - between a character who is "lucky all the time" and a character who routinely survives fireballs, multiple crossbow bolts, falling off of 100-ft cliffs etc. because he has lots of hit points.

I mean, isn't having lots of hit points just being lucky all the time? Sure, you might die in theory, but is there really that much of a difference - in terms of "realism" - between "being lucky all of the time" and "being lucky almost all of the time?"

For me, the benchmark is this: if it were a random bunch of NPCs (of the same levels and capabilities as the PCs) doing the adventure instead of the PCs, in vague terms how likely is it - given good tactics etc. - that one or more of those NPCs would die?

Those same chances of dying should apply to the PCs, reduced (but never fully eliminated) by smart play from the players and enhanced by not-smart or counterproductive play from the players.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

For me, the benchmark is this: if it were a random bunch of NPCs (of the same levels and capabilities as the PCs) doing the adventure instead of the PCs, in vague terms how likely is it - given good tactics etc. - that one or more of those NPCs would die?

Those same chances of dying should apply to the PCs, reduced (but never fully eliminated) by smart play from the players and enhanced by not-smart or counterproductive play from the players.

I have mostly checked out of this thread (there's only so much of a conga line I can endure, after all) but this points to, I think, the critical difference for you vs where D&D has gone and, in general, where players want it to go.

You don't want heroic characters--using the term in the ancient Greek sense, that is, people who are fundamentally larger-than-life, people around whom hero-cults form to literally raise them to godhood, apotheosis, people who are great enough to change the world. You want characters who are, at a fundamental level, identical to ordinary Joe Shmoe. Oh, they may have learned a cool technique, or figured out some smart tactics, or studied some magic or whatever. But they're fundamentally Just Some Guy who happens to have learned One Weird Trick (Guards Hate Them!)

That's just...not what most people are looking for from D&D. I had longer post, but honestly, it was self-indulgent. Most folks who hear what D&D is do want heroic characters. What, exactly, "heroic" cashes out to be--that's a pretty major point of contention. I'm pretty sure the things I would consider to be "heroic" would be utterly unacceptable to @Micah Sweet for example. But we aren't disagreeing about whether they are heroic or not. It's a matter of degree, not kind; but your expectation is a difference of kind. That's always going to be a sticking point.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I have mostly checked out of this thread (there's only so much of a conga line I can endure, after all) but this points to, I think, the critical difference for you vs where D&D has gone and, in general, where players want it to go.

You don't want heroic characters--using the term in the ancient Greek sense, that is, people who are fundamentally larger-than-life, people around whom hero-cults form to literally raise them to godhood, apotheosis, people who are great enough to change the world. You want characters who are, at a fundamental level, identical to ordinary Joe Shmoe. Oh, they may have learned a cool technique, or figured out some smart tactics, or studied some magic or whatever. But they're fundamentally Just Some Guy who happens to have learned One Weird Trick (Guards Hate Them!)

That's just...not what most people are looking for from D&D. I had longer post, but honestly, it was self-indulgent. Most folks who hear what D&D is do want heroic characters. What, exactly, "heroic" cashes out to be--that's a pretty major point of contention. I'm pretty sure the things I would consider to be "heroic" would be utterly unacceptable to @Micah Sweet for example. But we aren't disagreeing about whether they are heroic or not. It's a matter of degree, not kind; but your expectation is a difference of kind. That's always going to be a sticking point.

While I don't disagree with what you describe as the sticking point, I still don't understand (and at this point will likely never understand) why you and others feel it is so important that the popularity of one playstyle versus another be a factor here. Seriously, who cares if more people agree with you instead of @Lanefan , or me? What does that have to do with the price of diamond dust in Waterdeep?

 

[Xamnam]

What does that have to do with the price of diamond dust in Waterdeep?

Not the point, not to distract, but I'm just really tickled by this variation on the phrase, gonna have to use it at some point.

 

[Oofta]

Not the point, not to distract, but I'm just really tickled by this variation on the phrase, gonna have to use it at some point.

Missing the whole point! The real issue is, what is the weight in grams of diamond dust is it, and what quality must it be for a specific spell? What if you buy that diamond dust in Waterdeep and then go to Baldur's Gate where the value is significantly different? How can we cast Revivify with such sloppy descriptions as 300 GP worth of diamond dust?

 

[krillinfan]

5e isn't super well made for a meatgrinder style of game, and it doesn't really encourage the DM in that direction. Older players seeking a more brutal game will have a lot better luck looking at other systems, and newer players (and DMs!) just won't have the same inkling to experience it. If/when they do, hopefully they'll also check out other systems.

 

[Theory of Games]

5e isn't super well made for a meatgrinder style of game, and it doesn't really encourage the DM in that direction. Older players seeking a more brutal game will have a lot better luck looking at other systems, and newer players (and DMs!) just won't have the same inkling to experience it. If/when they do, hopefully they'll also check out other systems.

Or you can house-rule 5e into submission:

• When a PC falls to 0 HP, they are dead (no saves)

The impact of that one change can carry immense impact on the overall gaming experience. I love that we can make these games play the way we want

 

[EzekielRaiden]

While I don't disagree with what you describe as the sticking point, I still don't understand (and at this point will likely never understand) why you and others feel it is so important that the popularity of one playstyle versus another be a factor here. Seriously, who cares if more people agree with you instead of @Lanefan , or me? What does that have to do with the price of diamond dust in Waterdeep?

If this were a thread about how each individual one of us does things, the argument would be 100% irrelevant. That would be an "is" conversation.

Note the thread title. Emphasis added: "How Often Should a PC Die in D&D 5e?" This is an "ought" conversation. It is saying how things ought to be. In other words, it is setting, to at least some degree, a normative standard, a jumping-off point or baseline which must be modified away from. Always, some trace of a default must exist, even if it is pretty minimal. 5e does not have a minimal default, but rather a pretty extensive one--tailored to consumer surveys.

But, if you like, I am quite happy to never use the "popularity" argument ever again. If I do do that, though, I won't accept criticisms of other things that are based on whether they were popular, well-received, or well-understood by the audience at the time. Obviously I'm talking about 4e here, but it goes for any game.

Or you can house-rule 5e into submission:

• When a PC falls to 0 HP, they are dead (no saves)

The impact of that one change can carry immense impact on the overall gaming experience. I love that we can make these games play the way we want

When house-ruling is sufficient to "make these games play the way we want", anything goes. Every game can be made to play the way you want. The term has been devalued into uselessness. In other words, @krillinfan's argument remains and you've done nothing whatever to actually refute it.