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

[lolsworth]

In 5e I generally have 1 or 2 deaths a campaign, and finish around level 11 or 12. So I went with one death every 6-7 levels.

But I usually ban resurrection spells (or make resurrection more difficult). In 5e if Revivify and diamonds are readily available, character death becomes nothing more than an inconvenience

 

[Micah Sweet]

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.


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.

Not a complainer about 4e in any capacity beyond personal (lack of) preference. I have in fact defended it's position more than once.

As far as "should", that reads to me as a request for various folks opinions on what they do, so the OP can perhaps determine what course they want to take on the matter, not a request to create a normative standard. It's not like anything we do here will change anything.

 

[Theory of Games]

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.


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.

I didn't even realize I was supposed to be refuting something

These threads turn into mazes.

 

[Lanefan]

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.

"... in general, where you think players want it to go", more properly.

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!)

I just want the PCs to be an integral part of the setting they live in, rather than somehow removed or remote from it.

Looking at them, listening to them, etc. an observer in the setting shouldn't be able to distinguish a PC Elf from an NPC Elf assuming those Elves are of the same class, age, abilities, etc.; because if they can be so distinguished just because one of them is a PC you might as well throw setting integrity out the window.

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.

I think it's more that they're told to want heroic characters and can't or won't go against the marketing. To me, that's just a bucketful of sad.

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.

They still start out as ordinary Joes and Janes, though; because - however you define it - heroism of any kind comes from what you do rather than who you are.

Flip side: the PCs could be special-powered edge-cases all day long and still not be heroes, depending what they actually use all that special-ness to do. Which means, in the end, that the ordinary-Joe-and-Jane-ness of the PCs is completely tangential to their degree of heroism.

 

[Lanefan]

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.

While I don't really disagree with this, I think 5e could be relatively easily modified to simply produce a more lethal type of play. It would, however, take a much more in-depth kitbash to produce and allow the full-on old-school experience beyond just added lethality; and that's where your point holds true.

 

[Chaosmancer]

But if such individuals always include the PCs among their number, that is unrealistic to me.

Why? In-Universe you can't tell the difference between a PC and an NPC.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Has @Oofta at any point said they were speaking for anyone beyond themselves and their table?

If someone is talking about how the game can work in general, and another person says "No, it cannot work like that, because I do it differently" then it doesn't matter if they are only talking about their table, because they are using their table to counter a general point.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Well, Gygax got a successful game out of it, so I don't think it was degenerate at his table. Whether the methodology generalises widely is a different question - my purely personal experience is that most D&D players I've engaged with aren't hardcore wargamers and so wouldn't be very interested in this sort of play.

One person having a successful table with a degenerate method does not make the method less degenerate. Especially as you follow it up by pointing out it was likely the exception, not the baseline.

 

[Chaosmancer]

I established long ago that I have some restrictions, the example I've discussed on this thread is no evil PCs. There's no "gotcha" here because I've never said I discuss everything before making a decision. That goes for some rules such as the issue of the rogue thief with fast hands and casting all spells from a scroll as a bonus action as well where the issue came up, I read through the text, read through the discussion and made up my mind.

If someone wants to know why I made the decision I made we can discuss it but unless some new info comes up it's not going to change anything.

I'm not saying it is a gotcha. I'm saying you kept acting like our point that you had these hard lines you were not willing to discuss was completely fabricated, but you keep saying you have them. As I said before, you seem unwilling to be open to changing your mind, as evidenced by the fact that you literally say you will not change your mind (unless there is a change in the rules text regarding Thief Fast Hands)

Huh? I listen to other people, potentially including blogs and whatnot and then I decide how to implement the rules. As far as my decisions at the table go, I am the final authority. That doesn't mean I'm just making things up as I go along. As far as what other DMs do? Run the game the way that makes the most sense to you.

This isn't about making things up as you go along. This is about the difference between making a decision long before a player talks to you and being unwilling to alter your position, and entering into any possible discussion with that player with the mindset of "I have made my decision, it is final, I am willing to tell you my decision, but I am not willing to change it"

Sure, you can do whatever you want. But according to the books, how I run the game, how I prefer a DM run the game when I'm playing, the DM is the final authority.

You keep pointing to the books, like that means anything. We aren't discussing "how it has always been". We are discussing "how it might be" and "what is possible to do". You can't dismiss the discussion by just saying "The books give me the right to do this."

I was not answering a post from you. I was answering a general question on DM authority.

You do keep responding to me though. And to the points I'm raising. If you aren't discussing with me, but instead discussing with a strawman set up on some hill, then that's not really engaging in good faith. Also, you are responding to a general question, yet expect "I do it this way" to dismiss the premise of the general question? Sure, you've said I can do whatever I want... but you have ALSO said that the DM must be the final authority as empowered by the rulebooks and the last half century of the game. So which is it? Is it possible to DM differently, or not?

Since I never said a 3rd party is always the final authority, not sure what your talking about. If you want to abdicate your authority to someone else, that's fine. I mean I do in some cases because for the most part I follow the rules of the game. I've decided that the people writing the D&D books know better than I do on how to write a game. Meanwhile I still have a handful of house rules.

If I'm deciding on what movie to go see, what TV show to watch I'll typically read online reviews or get feedback from friends. But even if a lot of people raving about a show like Breaking Bad, it's still up to me whether or not I watch it.

Again, I'm not talking about anyone else should or should not do.

I'm not talking about always. See, you keep taking my position and making it more extreme. I never once said a 3rd party is ALWAYS the final authority. I said they COULD BE the final authority. It is possible. And if it is possible for them to be the Final Authority, then it is possible for the DM to NOT be the Final Authority.

I'm not telling anyone how to run their game. A common theme here is you falsely stating or implying that I'm pushing one true way. I'm not. I'm talking about my preferences and what I think has worked well. Everybody should find their own groove. Even if you refuse to give a specific answer on how you handle differences of opinions when they come up.

The default approach to the game is quite clear. The DM makes the final call on rules, but that doesn't mean the DM should ignore what their players want. Seems like you keep believing that since I make the final call I never, ever, listen to anyone else. I don't know how often I have to say that it's simply not true. There are some cases I've thought about something in detail and I've made a choice that is unlikely to change. In other cases I haven't looked into something or don't have a strong opinion. When it comes to actual campaign direction and development, players have a great deal of input.

So again, the same repeated assertions and assumptions.

If your only response to "it can be different" is "but I've always done it this way", then that isn't a very good rebuttal. And again, you keep claiming I've not been specific enough in my response on what to do when a difference of opinion comes up, but I've literally told you exactly what I would do. Repeatedly. I can't get more specific, because a discussion between two people involves having a discussion with the other person. It is like going to someone and saying "in a match against another person, what precisely will you do"? Anyone with any degree self-awareness will recognize that they cannot answer the question without knowing what the other person will do, because their actions will change your responses.

And the most frustrating part of this, is you changed your answer here at the end. Now it is "unlikely to change" rather than "it's not going to change anything"

 

[Chaosmancer]

Because it is a strong indicator that PCs are different in some kind of fundamental way from NPCs, because they can never die unless they choose to allow it. That's not the case with NPCs.

Except it is absolutely the case with NPCs.

The player of the NPC (the DM) automatically creates a scenario where the NPC can never die unless their player (the DM) chooses to allow it. No NPC can ever possibly die without the DM's consent, right?