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

[Micah Sweet]

No, I came nowhere near telling him he was too jaded to play DnD.

You said if you were as jaded as him, you wouldn't play. To my ear there's an implication there. But fair enough. I'll drop it since you telling me you didn't mean it that way. Sorry.

 

[Oofta]

And then, if the above is true re what the general playing populate wants, the question becomes whether this is a "be careful what you wish for" situation; where what they want ends up being bad for the game/hobby as a whole in the long run.

I've been playing pretty much since the beginning of the game, and high lethality games have been pretty rare in my (admittedly limited) experience. I have no idea what the general trend has been, but I don't think a high lethality rate is necessary for the game to succeed. It certainly hasn't stopped the growth we've seen over the past decade.

We've always decided how lethal we want the game to be for our characters and while permanent death is never off the table. If I wanted to kill off PCs left and right in the current iteration it wouldn't be that hard. It's just not what the players want out of the game, for many people it's never been what they've wanted out of the game.

 

[Swarmkeeper]

I can never convince him that his style isn't universally beloved or followed by all people?

Given that @Lanefan isn't arguing that at all, I'm not sure of the point. I would suggest charitably reading it as such and save yourself the frustration.

 

[Lanefan]

I was actually thinking about Sparhawk, the aging knight-magician who duels the ancient evil military god. I think Sparhawk was the name he had at least.

Sparhawk is probably the only Eddings I've never read.

Edit: Which of course, doesn't change the point. You say a "better example" but the truth is... no, Durnik would not be a better example of the heights fantasy can go to.

Of course he's not, and that's just my point: he's a good example of a grounded every-person character who can and does still hold his own in high-fantasy surroundings no matter how over-the-top things get.

Other than maybe endgame play where things tend to get gonzo anyway, not all of us are interested in exploring the "heights fantasy can go to" in our D&D games; if for no other reason than to quell the "how do you top this?" question from constantly rearing its ugly head.

 

[Lanefan]

I honestly feel like you need to expand your media consumption sometimes. No, it wouldn't be bad for the hobby in the long run. There is literally no reason for that to be true. Death isn't some magic ingredient X that makes a game good by its mere presence.

Mechanical loss conditions are an ingredient that make a game good by their mere presence; as without the possibility of loss, achieving mechanical win conditions becomes hollow. In modern D&D death is the only mechanical loss condition of any relevance remaining; if there were others - level loss, major item and gear destruction, etc. - then character death wouldn't be the sole focus.

Tons, and I do mean in literally terms of pounds and ounces, TONS of games and even RPGs exist, are beloved, and create massively memorable experiences without a character permanently dying and needing to be replaced.

And in how many of those tons of games was-is death completely off the table? And-or, in how many of those games was-is death replaced by another equally-penalizing mechanical loss condition?

 

[tetrasodium]

Mechanical loss conditions are an ingredient that make a game good by their mere presence; as without the possibility of loss, achieving mechanical win conditions becomes hollow. In modern D&D death is the only mechanical loss condition of any relevance remaining; if there were others - level loss, major item and gear destruction, etc. - then character death wouldn't be the sole focus.

I would add needing to draw upon consumable items (potions scrolls wands etc) and using needed gold to replenish them rather than better gear or whatever as another set of loss/consequence conditions that were effectively removed. Some of those self replenish while others have such low costs that they don't even notably impact PC wealth on top of the PCs not really even needing to spend that gold on anything else

 

[Umbran]

And then, if the above is true re what the general playing populate wants, the question becomes whether this is a "be careful what you wish for" situation; where what they want ends up being bad for the game/hobby as a whole in the long run.

Fearmonger, much?

The real question is why anyone should think that this playstyle, which has been around for decades, is somehow suddenly going to harm the game, much less the entire hobby.

It is really easy to passively intimate that what someone else likes is secretly long-term badwrongfun, but it would really be better to stick to clear assertions for which we can look at the receipts.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Sparhawk is probably the only Eddings I've never read.

Of course he's not, and that's just my point: he's a good example of a grounded every-person character who can and does still hold his own in high-fantasy surroundings no matter how over-the-top things get.

Sure. Extremely low-power can be a way to create a grounded character.

It it is both not the only way, nor necessarily the best way. Respectfully, I have to disagree with both you and one of my favorite writers, C.S. Lewis, on this front. Sometimes, seeing the familiar subjected to the strange is truly excellent for getting people engaged and appreciative. Other times, having the strange be subjected to familiar situations accomplishes that task better. Sometimes, being surprised to find you relate to a strange person in a strange situation is better. There is no strict relation here and demanding that ALL players of ALL games can ONLY be allowed to be near-incompetent everyman/everywoman farmboy/farmgirl characters is a disservice to both the fantasy(/sci-fi) and to the diversity and potential of TTRPGs. Everyman should be included; it should be a well-supported, bedrock archetype anyone can focus on if it tickles their fancy. Making it the only archetype folks are allowed to have, unless they reach ultra-high level, is not acceptable nor appropriate. Doubly so when extreme character lethality and extremely slow level growth are demanded to come along for the ride.

Paul Atreides is a compelling and interesting character. He is also never, at any point in his life, an everyman. He's the legitimate son of a space duke, he's special from the moment of his birth, he survives things that should normally have killed men of greater experience, he almost intuitively knows the ways of the Fremen before ever meeting them, he becomes Emperor of the Known Universe, he awakens as effectively Space Messiah, etc., etc. At no point in the entirety of the original four Dune novels (Dune, Dune Messiah, Children of Dune, and God Emperor of Dune) are any of the leading characters even remotely ordinary people leading even remotely ordinary lives. Yet they are still some of the best sci-fi around. Conversely, something like Le Guin's The Left Hand of Darkness is so thoroughly mundane that you barely even need its sci-fi premise; it has all of like two scenes where sci-fi is truly necessary to the story, and none where it's actually necessary to the plot. (Well, I guess, other than the fact that Genly sticks out amongst Gethenians since they only develop distinct sexual characteristics cyclically, but that could be handled with non-sci-fi stuff.) Genly is almost painfully normal, and he goes through trials that, while not exactly normal for most humans, are extremely grounded in most cases, the telepathic experience notwithstanding.

Other than maybe endgame play where things tend to get gonzo anyway, not all of us are interested in exploring the "heights fantasy can go to" in our D&D games; if for no other reason than to quell the "how do you top this?" question from constantly rearing its ugly head.

Sure! That's why there should be rules that support your preference for low-power, slow-progression, high-lethality, "gritty" play. I've never said otherwise, and have frequently brought up that specific interest as something I think deserves explicit and well-made representation within the games rules.

But you have yet to show that, simply because you aren't interested in other things, why EVERYONE should be subjected to those limitations, or else just get less game to play.

Mechanical loss conditions are an ingredient that make a game good by their mere presence;

No, they don't. They make it better for some things and worse for others. Mechanical loss conditions that are absolutely final are a particularly piquant example, and as a result they are not for all contexts. I mean, you literally even just gave an example up-thread of a context where this specific mechanical loss condition--absolutely final death on characters--would be bad.

They aren't unalloyed goods. Mechanical loss conditions are a tool. That tool has a place. Other tools also exist and should be considered. Why this specific tool is the one so many people demand ABSOLUTELY MUST be enforced on absolutely everyone, I don't know.

as without the possibility of loss, achieving mechanical win conditions becomes hollow.

1. You have here falsely claimed that mechanical loss conditions as the only way to have the possibility of loss. You can have "the possibility of loss" without having mechanical loss conditions.
2. You have implied that mechanical win conditions are the only possible win conditions. This is also false--particularly in D&D, where so many people are quite eager to point out that you cannot truly "win" D&D, you can only win in a specific context or scenario.
3. Consider a game like Tetris. It has a mechanical loss condition. You are still permitted to keep playing after that loss condition. Does this mean that someone achieving a high score in Tetris has achieved only and exclusively a hollow victory? I certainly don't think so.
4. D&D--indeed, any game--can express loss conditions, even mechanical ones, that are interesting without being experience-terminating (using "experience" instead of "story" since people seem to be allergic to the latter). Many of the mechanical loss conditions D&D has used are not very interesting. This is the problem being highlighted here.
5. Even if we do keep some of those mechanical loss conditions--e.g. level/stat drain, limb loss, various flavors of death since (as I hope I have established) not all deaths are the same--we can express them in different ways, that can work better with continuing the player's current experience, rather than completely trashing that experience and starting from scratch.

In modern D&D death is the only mechanical loss condition of any relevance remaining; if there were others - level loss, major item and gear destruction, etc. - then character death wouldn't be the sole focus.

Then come up with more mechanical loss conditions. I don't see how that's that onerous a task.

Even if it is onerous: Make death more interesting. If you're the one claiming EVERYONE needs to be on board with this horrifically ultra-lethal world, sell us on it. Stop saying that it is just flatly superior to any other way to play without explanation, and instead SHOW how it appeals even to folks like me who are skeptical. Show, don't tell.

And in how many of those tons of games was-is death completely off the table? And-or, in how many of those games was-is death replaced by another equally-penalizing mechanical loss condition?

How many of us have asked for death to be "completely off the table"?

 

[Lanefan]

Sure. Extremely low-power can be a way to create a grounded character.

To which the next step is, having created that grounded character and got it into play with that grounded tone already set, allow it - while retaining that grounded tone - to gain powers and abilities as it goes along. This is what happens to Durnik during that series as he slowly becomes a better warrior.

Never mind that this low-fantasy feet-on-the-ground character then performs perhaps the most heroic act of the whole story by - and back on thread topic here! - giving his life without anyone expecting this death to be anything other than permanent and irrevocable.

No, they don't. They make it better for some things and worse for others. Mechanical loss conditions that are absolutely final are a particularly piquant example, and as a result they are not for all contexts. I mean, you literally even just gave an example up-thread of a context where this specific mechanical loss condition--absolutely final death on characters--would be bad.

They aren't unalloyed goods. Mechanical loss conditions are a tool. That tool has a place. Other tools also exist and should be considered. Why this specific tool is the one so many people demand ABSOLUTELY MUST be enforced on absolutely everyone, I don't know.

Because it's the one specific tool some people seem to want to excise from the toolbox?

1. You have here falsely claimed that mechanical loss conditions as the only way to have the possibility of loss. You can have "the possibility of loss" without having mechanical loss conditions.

Non-mechanical losses don't count for these purposes.

Consider Snakes and Ladders. Hitting a snake is a significant mechanical loss condition, albeit one that allows you to keep playing. Rolling 2 on the dice where your opponent rolls a 6 (and nether of you lands on a snake or a ladder) is a loss, but only momentary and with limited long-term consequence as it'll even out in the long run.

1. You have implied that mechanical win conditions are the only possible win conditions. This is also false--particularly in D&D, where so many people are quite eager to point out that you cannot truly "win" D&D, you can only win in a specific context or scenario.

Mechanical win conditions in D&D: gaining a level (particularly if it's just you that gets one); finding or gaining a major item that you get to keep; permanently gaining one or more points in one or more stats - these are examples of the "ladders", i.e. major win conditions that are bigger than the in-the-moment defeat of a foe or solving of a puzzle.

1. Consider a game like Tetris. It has a mechanical loss condition. You are still permitted to keep playing after that loss condition. Does this mean that someone achieving a high score in Tetris has achieved only and exclusively a hollow victory? I certainly don't think so.

Tetris is a Rogue-like, in that you have to start over every time and there's no save points; and usually the main reason for playing such games is to try to beat your high score (and-or best your point of furthest advance in a true Rogue-like).

1. D&D--indeed, any game--can express loss conditions, even mechanical ones, that are interesting without being experience-terminating (using "experience" instead of "story" since people seem to be allergic to the latter). Many of the mechanical loss conditions D&D has used are not very interesting. This is the problem being highlighted here.
2. Even if we do keep some of those mechanical loss conditions--e.g. level/stat drain, limb loss, various flavors of death since (as I hope I have established) not all deaths are the same--we can express them in different ways, that can work better with continuing the player's current experience, rather than completely trashing that experience and starting from scratch.

Then come up with more mechanical loss conditions. I don't see how that's that onerous a task.

Maybe it's onerous, maybe it isn't; more to the point is that it's work that wouldn't need doing had the designers left well enough alone and carried the existing mechanical loss conditions forward from 1e-2e. That said, and to echo your well-made points about opt-in rules, they could have added in an option that would allows DMs to eschew those loss conditions if so desired, providing instead some other interesting and maybe-not-as-unpleasant consequences to take their place.

On a more general note: while I very much agree with your ideas around providing lots of opt-in rules, I posit they work far better when the default is the nastiest most difficult state the game has and the opt-ins (or opt-outs, same idea) all then serve to make the game easier on the players and-or characters, because then the DM looks like the "good guy" if-when any of those opt-ins/outs are adopted at the table.

How many of us have asked for death to be "completely off the table"?

Indirectly, lots, including you.

Now, before you get indignant, allow me to explain.

It's a true binary - death is either on the table (to any degree) or it is not. If a character can die by player request or due to gonzo stupidity or for any other reason then death is on the table. My position is that if death is on the table for these reasons then it must also be on the table due to sheer random bad dice luck - no fudging, remember. And suddenly, RPI deaths - no matter how infrequent they may be - are in play.

The flip side of this is that to take that random-bad-luck type of death off the table means in a no-fudging paradigm characters simply can't die, and thus all the other types of death have to go away with it. As soon as you allow gonzo-stupid deaths then you have to either fudge to avoid random not-gonzo deaths or you have to allow and accept them.

And as you've on numerous occasions said you don't want random (and permanent and irrevocable, the usual case at low levels) deaths and that you don't fudge your rolls, that means - because you can't have one type of death without the other - you're indirectly saying you want death off the table completely.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

To which the next step is, having created that grounded character and got it into play with that grounded tone already set, allow it - while retaining that grounded tone - to gain powers and abilities as it goes along. This is what happens to Durnik during that series as he slowly becomes a better warrior.

Never mind that this low-fantasy feet-on-the-ground character then performs perhaps the most heroic act of the whole story by - and back on thread topic here! - giving his life without anyone expecting this death to be anything other than permanent and irrevocable.

1. Why is that "the next step"? Why are we already talking about "the next step" when you have not yet actually defended why this is the only way people should be playing?
2. Why is that "the most heroic act"? It's certainly the most self-sacrificing. I love heroism! But by your own explicit descriptions, the gameplay your method actually favors is extremely selfish and antagonistic to the very concept of self-sacrificing heroism. If that connection is in practice nothing like what you're selling here, why should I believe the other parts will be?

Because it's the one specific tool some people seem to want to excise from the toolbox?

Who is doing this? I certainly haven't been. I have, explicitly and repeatedly, said that I speak only for my own preferences and that I simply want space for my preference to be possible. I'm not the one projecting a hegemonic thing on everyone else. You are.

Non-mechanical losses don't count for these purposes.

Says who? You have to defend this.

Consider Snakes and Ladders

Okay. I think this example is much too simple to actually draw a meaningful comparison. After all, you can actually "win" Snakes and Ladders.

Mechanical win conditions in D&D: gaining a level (particularly if it's just you that gets one); finding or gaining a major item that you get to keep; permanently gaining one or more points in one or more stats - these are examples of the "ladders", i.e. major win conditions that are bigger than the in-the-moment defeat of a foe or solving of a puzzle.

None of those are "win" conditions to me. They are certainly good events! But not a single one of them is actually winning. They're certainly achieving something. But that's like saying that one of the win conditions of poker is to have good cards; that's not winning anything, it's just a necessary step on the road to other things. Plus, your Snakes and Ladders metaphor is failing you. You can lose at Snakes and Ladders despite never touching a single snake. You can win at Snakes and Ladders despite never touching a single ladder. Hence, they cannot be win or loss conditions.

Further, you are fluidly using "win(/loss) condition" in three radically different senses: necessary, sufficient, and useful. (For the rest of this paragraph, "win"/"victory"/etc. should be understood to apply to loss as well.) The third is simply incorrect. Things that are useful to have in order to win, but not actually necessary nor sufficient to make that happen, are not win conditions. They're simply part of gameplay. Something that is necessary but not sufficient for victory is also generally not seen as a win condition, e.g. having cards in your hand is necessary to win poker, but that doesn't secure the win. Instead, when people speak of "win conditions", they mean things that, once achieved/gained/secured/etc., they make you win, then and there. Rolling boxcars, for example, is not a win condition--but if the game is "who can roll higher on 2d6", then the win condition is "having a higher roll", and boxcars is extremely useful for meeting that win condition (since at worst you will tie).

The things you describe aren't win conditions, neither on the small scale nor the large scale.

Tetris is a Rogue-like, in that you have to start over every time and there's no save points; and usually the main reason for playing such games is to try to beat your high score (and-or best your point of furthest advance in a true Rogue-like).

You have not answered the actual question, so let me ask it again, as simply as I can:

Why is Tetris not "hollow" because you can lose a game and yet continue playing? You specifically did not answer this question.

If you prefer something that does have, to an extent, a preserve-able state of play, what about other arcade machines, the "quarter eaters"? Those literally just let you pump some money in and boom, you're back exactly where you were, no progress lost. Of course, this mechanic is cynical and designed to fleece players of their money, but the point stands, especially in the modern context where many of these difficult arcade games are now played on PC or home console, where it costs the player nothing but the push of a button to insert new virtual quarters.

You have taken a hard and explicit stance: Without the very specific type of loss condition, one which completely deletes your prior participation and investment, ALL victories are completely hollow and meaningless. That's going to take a lot more than a one-sentence dismissal here.

Maybe it's onerous, maybe it isn't; more to the point is that it's work that wouldn't need doing had the designers left well enough alone and carried the existing mechanical loss conditions forward from 1e-2e.

Again, you are simply presuming the correctness of your argument without defending it. In order for them to have "left well enough alone", that state of affairs would have to be objectively correct and superior, and the new state of affairs objectively worse and inferior. You still have not lifted a finger to demonstrate this, apart from fiat declaration or circular reasoning.

That said, and to echo your well-made points about opt-in rules, they could have added in an option that would allows DMs to eschew those loss conditions if so desired, providing instead some other interesting and maybe-not-as-unpleasant consequences to take their place.

On a more general note: while I very much agree with your ideas around providing lots of opt-in rules, I posit they work far better when the default is the nastiest most difficult state the game has and the opt-ins (or opt-outs, same idea) all then serve to make the game easier on the players and-or characters, because then the DM looks like the "good guy" if-when any of those opt-ins/outs are adopted at the table.

Only if you intend to drive everyone away and make the game unpleasant for the vast majority of people who might try.

It is easy--trivially easy--to add difficulty to a game that lacks it. After all, every DM can say, "Rocks fall, everyone dies." (Ironically, in Monday's Ironsworn game, we did have Rocks Fall, but nobody died. The rockslide carried away the bad thing we were facing off against.) Likewise, it is easy--trivially easy--to make a game that has no difficulty at all, just do the reverse, declare everyone wins.

The hard thing, the thing that is on the starting side of the one-way function here, is making a system which reliably produces the desired level of interesting difficulty, as chosen by the GM/DM/ST/whatever. That is where the default should be, because it is by far the hardest state for a game to achieve, particularly with that "interesting" tag, since trivial difficulty is eminently possible and mostly worthless. (Tic Tac Toe is a perfectly balanced game in the trivial sense, which is why most people, even young children, tire of it quickly.)

Nontrivial, asymmetrical, dynamic balance is extremely difficult for a single person to develop on their own, so that is a task that we absolutely should be expecting the designers, the people who want to make money selling these rules, to undertake. It's why we pay them in the first place. Once you have a system that is already designed such that the DM can be quite confident about the difficulty of the challenges they construct, it is quite easy to break away from that and chart your own course if you so wish. Such things should be both directly supported (e.g. 13A-style "Nastier Specials" rules, amongst other things) and indrectly supported (e.g. advice for how to push the boundaries, ways to make high-difficulty conflicts managable for the PCs if the players do clever things, etc.)

And, again, this one-way function approach doesn't always do the things I personally want. I, personally, prefer first-level characters with lots of choices. That's not what is best for brand-new players. Hence, first level should be relatively light on choices in order to help induct new players. There may be other opt-in choices (such as novice levels) that can help with this process, but keeping 1st level relatively snappy is very important for getting people to actually want to play the game. Further, it's quite possible to add more choices for folks who want them; it's rather difficult to know how to remove choices that are baked in by default.

Indirectly, lots, including you.

Now, before you get indignant, allow me to explain.

It's a true binary - death is either on the table (to any degree) or it is not. If a character can die by player request or due to gonzo stupidity or for any other reason then death is on the table. My position is that if death is on the table for these reasons then it must also be on the table due to sheer random bad dice luck - no fudging, remember. And suddenly, RPI deaths - no matter how infrequent they may be - are in play.

Then your (bolded) position is, simply, wrong. Allow me to explain: It doesn't have to be. You can do it, or not do it, as you like. It's that simple.

Your position boils down to pretending that your hard binary is generous (either some kind of death is on the table, or it isn't), but you then immediately turn it into a hard binary that is begging the question, because you (without justification or explanation) demand that if any kind of death is on the table, every kind of death must be. Why?

The flip side of this is that to take that random-bad-luck type of death off the table means in a no-fudging paradigm characters simply can't die, and thus all the other types of death have to go away with it. As soon as you allow gonzo-stupid deaths then you have to either fudge to avoid random not-gonzo deaths or you have to allow and accept them.

This is what I referenced above. Here, you have quite cleverly turned what should be a generous, open hard binary--either some kind of death is on the table, or it's not--and then turned it into a self-serving, begging-the-question binary by asserting, without explanation or evidence, that allowing any death of any kind means we must now allow absolutely all deaths of all kinds. It's a slippery slope argument, and I reject it for exactly that reason. Either you need to explain why all deaths absolutely have to be on the table just because one kind is, or you need to get used to people blowing off this argument as a load of hot air.

And as you've on numerous occasions said you don't want random (and permanent and irrevocable, the usual case at low levels) deaths and that you don't fudge your rolls, that means - because you can't have one type of death without the other - you're indirectly saying you want death off the table completely.

Yes, you can have one type of death without the other. Quite easily. I am not "indirectly saying [that I] want death off the table completely", and in fact have explicitly said that I want death to be on the table. Just not RPI death.

Unless you actually prove that the presence of any one kind of death, any at all, logically requires the presence of absolutely all of them--something I sincerely doubt you will be able to do--then your claim completely falls apart.

You have argued from two premises, both of which I reject:
A -- "If one kind of death is present, then absolutely all kinds of death must be present."
B -- "If all kinds of death aren't present, every achievement is hollow and meaningless."

I have given clear and specific arguments to the contrary and asked for explanation or evidence. You have provided no such things.