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

How Often Should PC Death Happen in a D&D 5e Campaign?

  • I prefer a game where a character death happens about once every 12-14 levels

    Votes: 0 0.0%

All this does is point out some massive flaws in 5e (and 4e, as well) design. The gap between commoner and 1st-level character is way too big, and the subsequent power curve as the levels advance is way too steep.

I mean, if WotC really want people to play a supers game why don't they just own up to that, pull off the veil, and design one?

"Not what I like" =/= "Massive Flaws in the design"

And they aren't making a superhero game. They are making a High Fantasy game. The sort of game where the main character might be the avatar of a god who does battle for the fate of the universe (Eddings). I've read a great fantasy series about a young woman who is a skilled but down-on-her-luck mercenary... who in one of the books used a word of power to force a god's army to its knees, because her bloodline is ancient and she can't let people know or really dangerous things will seek her out. That series has had more down-to-earth dealings with gritty threats and things like paying rent or working with stubborn crap co-workers than most I've read too.

Gods, Titans, ancient magic, demons. Yes, of course fantasy stories can be about Jim the pig farmer whose miserable camping in the mud while hunting a single monster. They can also be about Janice, Seer of the 8th circle, who stands guard at the Meridian of the Moment to defend the birth of the universe from the machinations of mad gods from other dimensions.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

See, that's the difference - with a cake, the whole point is the finished product; the tedious work that goes into making it is just a means to that end. With a character, in theory there's no equivalent to a "finished product" - the character is always evolving and ideally the game has no pre-set end point - and thus the whole point is the process, the day-to-day in-the-moment play that eventually adds up to something more, be it for the character or the party as a whole.

And if the whole point is the process.... then it is a bad thing when that process is suddenly cut-off with no warning. It is all well and good to say "it is not the destination, but the journey" but when the journey is being squished by a tree that fell while you were walking down the sidewalk in front of your house, while your destination was some hundred or two hundred miles away... it doesn't feel like you had a good journey.

And again. We recognize that people get upset when things they are invested in are suddenly altered or destroyed. We recognize that investing a lot of time into something makes it precious to that person. A DnD character is a MASSIVE time investment for most people. A single DnD session is longer than a movie, but three sessions isn't very much for the game.

That's entirely your own choice, and IMO if that character enters play one hour and perma-dies the next you've no-one else to blame for the loss of those hours spent back-story writing other than yourself. Risk-reward - you've taken the risk of doing all that work in hopes of getting the reward of seeing it inform your long-term play of the character.

And so here it is. "You have no one to blame but yourself for caring about something you are going to spend potentially hundreds of hours on". Which has nothing to do with the point, which was to remind you that whether or not YOU get invested in characters, OTHER PEOPLE do get invested in them, and it isn't some bizarre nonsense thing that has no correlation in human behavior, it is actually pretty expected.

Corollary risk, if you didn't consult with your DM first, is that some or all of what you've written might get vetoed.

How can I tell the DM about any of the things I'm thinking about.. without thinking about them first? How is it possible to get DM approval on the professions of my character's parents, without thinking of, considering, and writing what those are?

Also, I find the use of the word "veto" interesting. Veto is a cancellation, a negation. Just saying "no" and handing it back to be tossed in the trash. You don't veto a collaboration. And if my DM cares enough about the jobs of my character's parents to say "no those jobs aren't acceptable" then they certainly should care enough to work with me to make it fit better.

Go ahead and think about this stuff, sure, but don't commit it to paper until the character's shown it's going to last a while.

But thinking about it is the entire point I was bringing up. Even if I don't write it down, spending six hours thinking about my character's backstory and how they are as a person has given me more time with them than I've invested in entire movie franchises. That creates investment. Even if I don't write a word of it on a page.

Maybe I'm jaded after having lost so many of 'em, but I do try (and usually but not always succeed) to keep player and character compartmentalized and separate. The player side of things says "Meh, it's just a game, and this time I lost - again" while the character side holds the thoughts and feelings of whatever character(s) I'm playing at the time.

And even if I'm not confident on a character's survivability I do what I can to give it a distinctive personality and characterization right away in its first session in order to make it entertaining and-or memorable; that way if it does turn out to be a shooting star at least it did its bit for the fun of the group while it lasted. :)

Honestly? I think you are heavily jaded. I think if I had the type of mentality and attitude you have about your characters towards mine, I wouldn't even be playing DnD anymore. It wouldn't be worth the effort of trying to find a game and make it work for something I cared so little about.

You enjoy it in your own way, and that's great, but what I'm trying to get across to you is this attitude of "your character doesn't matter. Don't get attached. They will die and you will shrug and make a new one because it doesn't matter" is you being jaded after decades of play, and NOT how the majority of people approach their characters or the game. Go on reddit for even a second and you will be bombarded by artwork of people's DnD characters. The non-artists don't love their characters less, they just have less skill to express it with.
 

It absolutely does. People call things stuff all the time. That doesn't make it true or correct.


According to you.


Actually, he can! Like that's literally a thing the UK monarch can actually do!

It's just that if he ever did so, Parliament would almost certainly near-immediately strip the royal family of anything resembling influence or authority that it still might have. The power remains without being officially stripped away because there is a gentleperson's agreement that it will almost never, but not quite absolutely never, actually be used.

There is no normative force here, nothing binding that prevents it. There is, however, a consequence for choosing to break the convention against doing that thing. But, to give an actual, concrete example: conventionally, anything that Parliament passes as law will be given "royal assent". In essentially all cases, this is a mere formality, a convention preserved because of the arcane way that English law crystallized out of the previous pure-autocrat system that had previously existed. (Hence where we get ridiculous, but legally essential, concepts like "the Crown-in-Parliament"--because technically speaking, it is still the Crown that has the right to legislate, it's just that "the Crown" is not actually the person of the monarch, but the legal framework surrounding how laws are created.)

Thing is...nothing actually forces the monarch to give royal assent. At any time, for any reason or no reason at all, the monarch could deny royal assent, which, completely legally, prevents that law from coming into effect. It is, effectively, an absolute veto power. No part of English law prevents this and while it would be a flagrant violation of custom, no actual penalty or punishment arises from that act. Parliament likes that this exists, because it can be used as a last-ditch emergency escape clause if a situation has gone pear-shaped and a consequence-free do-over is desired. This happens extremely rarely, but it has, in fact, happened; the last time royal assent was denied in England (rather, the Kingdom of Great Britain) was in 1708, with the Scottish Militia Bill, which Queen Anne denied royal assent...because the Cabinet asked her to, as the sudden revelation that France was supporting Jacobite rebels with a potential French invasion fleet opened the possibility that a Scottish militia would be disloyal to the Queen and instead support her half-brother, the only son of James II & VII.

Note, however, that I said "in England". Denial of royal assent was used frequently in the British colonies of North America by George III. There were zero consequences of this, because the English populace didn't care that a bunch of yokel colonists were getting their random-whatever laws vetoed, and it was completely legal for George III to do this--any realm under the British crown (what we would now call "the Commonwealth") is potentially subject to denial of royal assent.

So....yeah. I'm quite well aware that the English """constitution""" is nothing of the sort, held together with chewing gum and baling wire, but your example is both factually and historically inaccurate. There is, in fact, a rule. By convention, that rule is almost never invoked anymore, but there's literally nothing actually stopping it. There would almost surely be negative consequences for the monarch if he or she did invoke it without a fantastically good reason, but "your actions have consequences" is not a rule, it's just a fact of life.

I would not be at all surprised if, for example, a Prime Minister that was found to have done something deeply offensive but not technically illegal--and thus almost totally insulated from actual consequences, as "impeachment" means something different in English law compared to almost anywhere else in the world--might be sacked by Charles III or a successor at the request of Parliament. That wouldn't violate convention, because it would be done at the request of democratically-elected officials rather than the monarch simply doing what he likes because he feels like it. And it would be using a real, official, extant law...just one that is essentially never used.

As a side note on this, I was recently watching a short from a UK Youtuber who was talking about Royal Assent. Turns out, at least during the time of Queen Elizabeth II, advisors from both the Prime Minister and the Royal Family would meet constantly to discuss upcoming laws to ensure that the Queen was not inclined to deny them Royal Assent.

Meaning that while nothing was ever denied... that was because intentionally nothing was ever proposed that would be denied. Whether that was because the PM pressured the Queen, the Queen pressured the PM, or BOTH, I find irrelevant.

I don't know how this fits into the discussion, I've been skimming this, but I thought it was a neat fact.
 

And if the whole point is the process.... then it is a bad thing when that process is suddenly cut-off with no warning. It is all well and good to say "it is not the destination, but the journey" but when the journey is being squished by a tree that fell while you were walking down the sidewalk in front of your house, while your destination was some hundred or two hundred miles away... it doesn't feel like you had a good journey.

And again. We recognize that people get upset when things they are invested in are suddenly altered or destroyed. We recognize that investing a lot of time into something makes it precious to that person. A DnD character is a MASSIVE time investment for most people. A single DnD session is longer than a movie, but three sessions isn't very much for the game.

And so here it is. "You have no one to blame but yourself for caring about something you are going to spend potentially hundreds of hours on". Which has nothing to do with the point, which was to remind you that whether or not YOU get invested in characters, OTHER PEOPLE do get invested in them, and it isn't some bizarre nonsense thing that has no correlation in human behavior, it is actually pretty expected.

How can I tell the DM about any of the things I'm thinking about.. without thinking about them first? How is it possible to get DM approval on the professions of my character's parents, without thinking of, considering, and writing what those are?

Also, I find the use of the word "veto" interesting. Veto is a cancellation, a negation. Just saying "no" and handing it back to be tossed in the trash. You don't veto a collaboration. And if my DM cares enough about the jobs of my character's parents to say "no those jobs aren't acceptable" then they certainly should care enough to work with me to make it fit better.

But thinking about it is the entire point I was bringing up. Even if I don't write it down, spending six hours thinking about my character's backstory and how they are as a person has given me more time with them than I've invested in entire movie franchises. That creates investment. Even if I don't write a word of it on a page.

Honestly? I think you are heavily jaded. I think if I had the type of mentality and attitude you have about your characters towards mine, I wouldn't even be playing DnD anymore. It wouldn't be worth the effort of trying to find a game and make it work for something I cared so little about.

You enjoy it in your own way, and that's great, but what I'm trying to get across to you is this attitude of "your character doesn't matter. Don't get attached. They will die and you will shrug and make a new one because it doesn't matter" is you being jaded after decades of play, and NOT how the majority of people approach their characters or the game. Go on reddit for even a second and you will be bombarded by artwork of people's DnD characters. The non-artists don't love their characters less, they just have less skill to express it with.

You realize that @Lanefan's perceived attitude of "your character doesn't matter... don't get attached" is the the context of his table and his campaign. Your table doesn't play the same way so his table has nothing to do with your character. His rules can't affect your character. There is zero to worry about. You can acknowledge that neither of you would like to play at each other's table, nod, and move on. Or continue to argue in frustration, reading into his statements as him declaring universal truths rather than specific preferences, and never convincing him of anything since it doesn't apply to his playstyle.

All that said, if you (the general you) sign up for a campaign and, in session zero, everyone agrees to a campaign premise that death is a possibility for your character, players have no right to get mad at the DM or at their fellow party members if their PC should die. Getting mad at the dice is fine, of course. In our last campaign, where we agreed death was on the table, I did spend quite a bit of effort creating a backstory for my kenku goo warlock. It is part of the fun for me. He made it to 7th level before being consumed by a Shambling Mound. Was I sad? Actually, I was a bit. Was I mad? Not at all - it was something that could... and did... happen b/c I signed up for that possibility. In the end, it was a glorious end for ol' Scritch. And my other character, his smuggling partner before they both got sucked into Ravenloft, vowed to avenge him... and thus the story continued.
 

I think it is normal to get attached to characters and feel sad when they die. It is true for RPGs, it is true for all fiction. If we would not care about the character, if it would not affect us that they die, then their death would truly be pointless.
But caring about them doesn't naturally lead to, "so they can't die unless I decide it's ok".
 

And if the whole point is the process.... then it is a bad thing when that process is suddenly cut-off with no warning. It is all well and good to say "it is not the destination, but the journey" but when the journey is being squished by a tree that fell while you were walking down the sidewalk in front of your house, while your destination was some hundred or two hundred miles away... it doesn't feel like you had a good journey.

And again. We recognize that people get upset when things they are invested in are suddenly altered or destroyed. We recognize that investing a lot of time into something makes it precious to that person. A DnD character is a MASSIVE time investment for most people. A single DnD session is longer than a movie, but three sessions isn't very much for the game.



And so here it is. "You have no one to blame but yourself for caring about something you are going to spend potentially hundreds of hours on". Which has nothing to do with the point, which was to remind you that whether or not YOU get invested in characters, OTHER PEOPLE do get invested in them, and it isn't some bizarre nonsense thing that has no correlation in human behavior, it is actually pretty expected.



How can I tell the DM about any of the things I'm thinking about.. without thinking about them first? How is it possible to get DM approval on the professions of my character's parents, without thinking of, considering, and writing what those are?

Also, I find the use of the word "veto" interesting. Veto is a cancellation, a negation. Just saying "no" and handing it back to be tossed in the trash. You don't veto a collaboration. And if my DM cares enough about the jobs of my character's parents to say "no those jobs aren't acceptable" then they certainly should care enough to work with me to make it fit better.



But thinking about it is the entire point I was bringing up. Even if I don't write it down, spending six hours thinking about my character's backstory and how they are as a person has given me more time with them than I've invested in entire movie franchises. That creates investment. Even if I don't write a word of it on a page.



Honestly? I think you are heavily jaded. I think if I had the type of mentality and attitude you have about your characters towards mine, I wouldn't even be playing DnD anymore. It wouldn't be worth the effort of trying to find a game and make it work for something I cared so little about.

You enjoy it in your own way, and that's great, but what I'm trying to get across to you is this attitude of "your character doesn't matter. Don't get attached. They will die and you will shrug and make a new one because it doesn't matter" is you being jaded after decades of play, and NOT how the majority of people approach their characters or the game. Go on reddit for even a second and you will be bombarded by artwork of people's DnD characters. The non-artists don't love their characters less, they just have less skill to express it with.
I care more about the world and the emergent story than any given PC, even my own.

Am I too jaded to play D&D in your estimation too?
 

All this does is point out some massive flaws in 5e (and 4e, as well) design. The gap between commoner and 1st-level character is way too big, and the subsequent power curve as the levels advance is way too steep.

I mean, if WotC really want people to play a supers game why don't they just own up to that, pull off the veil, and design one?
Yeah, it's a superhero game in Dungeons and Dragons clothing. But, that's what we want so that's what we get. When I started playing role-playing games I chose to play Dungeons and Dragons rather than DC heroes because I don't care for super heroes. Just like I chose to play Top Secret and not Boot Hill because I like James Bond but dislike Westerns.

The way we play Dungeons and Dragons today feels more like a high powered version of Star Wars. You have to try real hard to make it feel any other way*.

*Yes, this is an opinion. But it's based on playing with lots of different people.
 
Last edited:

*This was also the guy where I would put potential plot hooks specifically designed to his PC's interest (and do nothing more than the absolute minimum prep) so he could purposely ignore them and then gloat about how he had made me waste time. After I killed his first PC, he continued playing for a while and left because he wanted to play a game where "We meet in a tavern and stuff happens." Still not sure what that meant.
The moment I found that out would be the moment he left the game forever. I don't care if players ignore a plot hook because they don't have interest in it, but to do it in order to deliberately waste my would show me that this isn't the kind of person I want to know or play D&D with.
 
Last edited:

So are we just ignoring Arneson and how he ran Blackmoor? Which was pretty different from how Gygax ran his table and from everything I heard was far more concerned about story and character than punishing players for listening at doors too much.
TBH I know very little about how Arneson ran Blackmoor; I'll have to take your word for it that he ran it differently than did Gygax, but what most of us were playing in the early 80s was by all appearances a fairly direct descendant of Gygax's game.
 

If majority of people use word differently than you then it is highly likely that it is you who is incorrect.
Oh, absolutely not. If that were true, we'd still have suffrage limited to property-owning white men.

According the words printed in the D&D books.
And my argument is that the books are wrong. "The books disagree!" is not a useful rebuttal to "The books are wrong."

It literally isn't. "Literally" meaning here "in actuality."
It literally is, as in it actually is true that, legally, the monarch is not required to give royal assent and, legally, cannot be compelled to do so. Just because they choose not to use the power--due to knowing that the consequences would be dire--does not mean the power doesn't exist.

What you mean is not "literally". It is "practically." Because in practice a veto by denial of royal assent would be political suicide for the monarch. It is still--literally, meaning here the letter of the law--the case that the monarch can deny royal assent for any reason they like, and doing so functionally vetoes a bill that has been approved by Parliament. This prerogative of the Crown remains in existence. As an example, the Governors-General of various Commonwealth countries, such as Australia, also feature this quirk of law, because each Governor-General acts on behalf of the Crown, and thus--legally, literally, per the letter of the law in those countries--retains the right to absolute veto. A Governor-General using this power would be somewhat less scandalous, but still would very likely have negative consequences.

Same thing goes for Parliament itself with its "absolute sovereignty" concept. Parliament's sovereignty in the UK is truly absolute. It can write whatever laws it wants, even laws that are impossible to enforce or impossible to comply with. If Parliament wished to, it could abolish elections tomorrow and rule as an oligarchy. If Parliament wished to, it could declare that all persons must wear pants with legs that are shorter than one foot long and longer than two feet long, even though it is logically (and physically) impossible for any pair of pants to meet that requirement. Nothing--not even Parliament itself--can limit the scope of Parliament's legislation, and UK courts functionally cannot declare any Parliamentary law unconstitutional. (Note that I did not say literally cannot; there are contexts where it is possible, but they're exceedingly narrow.) Per the rulings of Lord James Reid in 1965:

"It is often said that it would be unconstitutional for the United Kingdom Parliament to do certain things, meaning that the moral, political and other reasons against doing them are so strong that most people would regard it as highly improper if Parliament did these things. But that does not mean that it is beyond the power of Parliament to do such things. If Parliament chose to do any of them, the courts would not hold the Act of Parliament invalid."

And this is precisely the distinction between mere convention--"meaning that the moral, political and other reasons against doing [something] are so strong that most people would regard it as highly improper"--and actual, literal law.

Rules, laws, conventions. In practice it is the same. A group, a society etc agrees that thing are done in certain way. So they are. And if not, there will probably be some consequences.
Yes: in practice. But what is in practice is not what is literally true of the law. Practices are rarely written down. Laws, and rules, are written down or rehearsed or otherwise formally established. That's part of what makes them laws or rules.

My advice to you is to stop being so dogmatically lawful, thinking everything in such black and white terms. It hampers your understanding of the reality, which is not like that, but rather messy, nuanced and full of spectrums.
I appreciate your effort to provide advice, but it is unlikely that I will apply it.
 

Trending content

Remove ads

Top