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

[EzekielRaiden]

Sorry, mate, that's bloody dysfunctional. If you don't like how the game will be run when it is told you up front before the game begins, just don't participate.

This I wholeheartedly agree with, and it is why I said what I said before. However...

But, but... discussion and compromise? Nevertheless, I'm glad that you finally seem to agree that is fine to not include the players that do not accept the GM's premise.

Firstly, not what I said. What I said was that a player saying those things--meaning, the player explicitly telling me "I am going to play disruptively in order to break your game so you stop doing something that I don't like"--is perfectly cause to show that player the door. Disruptive behavior should not be tolerated.

Secondly, this is an argument that should not be dragged into yet another thread on a completely unrelated topic. Your base canard against it is unfair, especially since if I engage further, I'm simply abetting your derail of the thread, but if I don't engage, it will be characterized as concession. That's pretty dirty pool. I don't think it's worthy of an infraction or anything (otherwise I'd report it), but that really isn't cool, man.

 

[Morrus]

Here is a quote from that article:

It shows that the Queen was asked to approve changes to child maintenance in 2007, national insurance in 2004 and paternity pay in 2006 because they would apply to employees of the Royal Households and the "interests of the crown" were likely to be affected.​

​

Legislation introducing tuition fees in 2004 required approval because of the Crown's historical role as a visitor of universities while a bill legalising civil partnerships needed consent because of a declaration on its validity which "would bind Her Majesty".​

This is about the ability of the monarch to govern their own affairs. It is not about general law-making.

You'll also note that the article reports the Cabinet Office stating that "consent had only ever been refused on ministers' advice and never for a government bill". The claim by the republicans that "This is clearly more than a formality. It is hard to believe the palace's claim that consent is only withheld on the instruction of ministers" is mere assertion. Personally, I trust the Cabinet Office.

As for the relationship between convention and law, in circumstances where you're not very familiar with it, I'd suggest that you don't rely too heavily on it to set out your own ideas about RPGing. I already posted, upthread, that the leading Australian textbook takes the position that much of what traditionally, in the UK, would be regarded as convention is, in Australia, law. Even in the context of the UK, articulating the difference between law and convention is non-trivial, and relies on particular features of the common law, parliamentary law-making by way of statute, and justiciability - and also on the distinctive British jurisprudential tradition of Bentham, Austin and Dicey - which do not necessarily generalise to other legal systems and have (in my view) little applicability to the analysis of game rules.

For instance, it is well-known that breaches of convention are in general not justiciable (sometimes they are, at least in an indirect fashion) and hence will not attract a court-ordered sanction. But what is the relationship between a rule being a law and a rule being enforceable by court-ordered sanction? This is not a trivial question; but it is also irrelevant to the analysis of RPGing.

I am an expert on the Australian Constitution. I have taught constitutional law. I am a published scholar in the field. My expert opinion has been sought by lawmakers and by journalists. What you say is not correct, in principle or otherwise. Have you consulted Stellios and Zines? If you haven't, then you are not in a position to comment on Australia.

What would that even mean? Have you read the fox-hunting case, discussing the constitutional standing, in the UK, of the Parliament Acts? Have you read the prorogation case?

To me, you seem to have a more-or-less Wikipedia-level grasp of the relevant issues. But no more.

For instance, how would Parliament go about abolishing the need for Royal Assent, if the monarch were not prepared to assent to such a Bill?

What does "right" mean in this sentence? And how do you reconcile "does not happen" with "could happen"?

There are answers to these questions, but nothing that you have posted suggests that you are familiar with them. They are complex, and involve difficult questions of jurisprudence, of legal and political history, and of judicial practice.

All you are doing here is reiterating a mid-level undergraduate account of the distinction between law and convention. But you are doing so in a way that fails to convey an accurate understanding of the details of the constitution, the way that it operates, etc.

I mean, the US army clearly has sufficient fire-power to kill any judge that it wishes to, to fight off any police officers that it wishes to, etc. Yet - at least as I understand things - the US army routinely confirms to judicial orders given against it. Why? To say "because it's the law" is no answer at all - parallel laws operate in many jurisdictions, but they don't stop the armies in those jurisdictions from staging coups etc.

One answer is "convention" and "expectation". This answer is richly developed in the work of Martin Krygier.

How, then, does the US constitutional framework ultimately differ from that of the UK? That is a tricky question. A sceptical answer is given in the essay "Can there be a written constitution?" by John Gardner. Other answers are also possible.

But none of this matters to the play of RPGs, or the ways that their rules work.

Do you feel that essays on constitutional frameworks falls= outside the "no politics" rule? You should know better than this.

 

[Morrus]

I'm just not sure how I should understand things like this BBC article showing pro-republican political groups being outraged over "royal consent", which technically is distinct from Royal Assent but functions more or less the same, as a denial of royal consent is also functionally a royal veto. It's explicit here that (a) royal consent being applied only under advice of ministers is a matter of convention, not law, and (b) this degree of involvement (which some called totally unacceptable interference by the royal family, either the Queen or the then-Prince) can in fact function as a veto.

Like...this is perfectly in keeping with the laws of the UK, and at least in principle any Commonwealth nation that has not abolished the monarchy. It's also seen as horrifically offensive to some folks, as a breach of the non-interference convention regarding the monarch, but (AFAIK) it is still true to the laws of the UK, which would need to actually be changed in order to forbid this practice.

If so many places, including the BBC, claim that the monarch could deny actual Royal Assent, and has denied royal consent, why is it actually a matter of law that they cannot?

Hell, the Parliament itself says that this still could, theoretically, happen. Emphasis added: "Royal Assent is the Monarch's agreement that is required to make a Bill into an Act of Parliament. While the Monarch has the right to refuse Royal Assent, nowadays this does not happen; the last such occasion was in 1708, and Royal Assent is regarded today as a formality."

Oh, come on. What is this doing here?

 

[Morrus]

So some people felt the 'no politics' rule meant 'please engage in lengthy in-depth discussions about politics".

I don't know how we could have been clearer.

Any more will result in threadboots.

 

[Chaosmancer]

What this speaks to is the steepness of the power curve between "townsfolk" and "5th-level adventurers"; a steepness that in the WotC editions (and, arguably, before that) is IMO far too great.

No, it really shouldn't speak to that. The 1st level adventurers were doing things too dangerous for the Townsfolk. The fact that they are 5th level, and 5th level is stronger than 1st level has nothing to do with the gap being too large.

And if you don't like 5th level, make it 11th or 15th. Farmer Brown saying "this is dangerous" becomes less and less reliable as a signal to the PCs that actual threat awaits them.

The townsfolk will know the forest is dangerous, and that those who venture in there tend not to come out. They may very well not know - or have completely wrong ideas about - what the actual danger is; it could be anything from a low-grade bandit gang concealing their presence to a big ol' Green Dragon treating the villagers as wandering snacks but from the townsfolk's perspective it all looks the same: no-one comes back out of that forest.

It's then on the PCs to - if they're interested - investigate the source(s) and nature(s) of the danger (while maybe or maybe not encountering some of it in the process) and then decide a) whether it's something they think they can handle or whether it needs higher-priced help and-or b) what precautions might make sense to help deal with the danger as now known.

The flummoxing part comes when PCs skip the whole information-gathering and investigative step and go straight to the wade-in-all-guns-blazing step, then wonder why they're getting smoked.

And that is just foisting the responsibility onto the players. If you are trying to warn them away from a forest that contains threats too powerful for them to face, you don't have it be identical looking to a low-level threat they can trivially face down, then expect them to "figure it out" when they end up kicking the metaphorical dragon's tail. You should put some actual effort into making sure you foreshadow appropriately.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Indeed, it could be no more than a rumour spread to keep people away from someone's hidden home in the forest. In which case, asking for more details isn't likely to get anything concrete (which might in itself raise the PCs' suspicions); and thus maximum caution becomes the order of the day when entering the forest until-unless the PCs determine it's all a hoax.

While I know you will call this a problem with the game design, and foolishness on the part of the players, and continually dismiss it as signs of how your games are better... most people don't want to play the game in an approach of constant paranoia about every single adventure.

There is nothing wrong with a group playing like they are a SWAT team or a SEAL team, and treating every single engagement as a tactical puzzle that requires precision timing and meticulous planning... but not everyone wants the game that way. When we are recreating Conan or Tolkien, we aren't looking for that style of game.

 

[Lanefan]

And that is just foisting the responsibility onto the players. If you are trying to warn them away from a forest that contains threats too powerful for them to face, you don't have it be identical looking to a low-level threat they can trivially face down, then expect them to "figure it out" when they end up kicking the metaphorical dragon's tail. You should put some actual effort into making sure you foreshadow appropriately.

That's just it - if the players play their characters with a common-sense approach to self-preservation I shouldn't have to proactively foreshadow anything unless the situation is such that such warnings might appear.

And if they don't play with a common-sense approach to self-preservation then sooner or later that's likely going to bite them. Hard.

While I know you will call this a problem with the game design, and foolishness on the part of the players, and continually dismiss it as signs of how your games are better... most people don't want to play the game in an approach of constant paranoia about every single adventure.

There is nothing wrong with a group playing like they are a SWAT team or a SEAL team, and treating every single engagement as a tactical puzzle that requires precision timing and meticulous planning... but not everyone wants the game that way. When we are recreating Conan or Tolkien, we aren't looking for that style of game.

Can't speak to Conan but the characters in Tolkein tend to have (or, for the Hobbits, develop) a fairly high sense of self-preservation and caution; while still recognizing potentially self-sacrificial moments as and when they arise (Gandalf vs Balrog, Eowyn and Merry vs Nazgul, the Gondor army at the gates of Mordor, etc.) and standing in anyway.

And I can't stand SEAL-team play. Far too regimented for my tastes.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Regarding telegraphing and information gathering, I prefer both to be part of the game. The GM should telegraph dangers, but the players also should take some active steps to learn more too. I think D&D is the sort of game where PCs making some amount of preparations makes sense. There are many magic items (such as potions that grant resistance to certain damage types) that make sense in such a context.

 

[JediSoth]

Can't answer as the appropriate options don't fit:

I prefer a game where a character death happens whenever the game determines it happens.

I don't care for some many times per level, multiple, or never. How the players play there characters is the major factor, but bad luck can result in death and that's fine--odds are if they got in that situation where bad luck can cause death, it was their decisions that put them there... and so they get whatever they have coming.

This is kind of my feeling as well. I never understood why some people seem to wear the number of PCs they've killed as a badge of honor. In D&D especially, character creation is too involved for meatgrinder style play, IMO. That's what DCC funnels are for, or Paranoia. Heck, even BEMCI or B/X D&D (and AD&D to a lesser extent) is better for that.

 

[tetrasodium]

This is kind of my feeling as well. I never understood why some people seem to wear the number of PCs they've killed as a badge of honor. In D&D especially, character creation is too involved for meatgrinder style play, IMO. That's what DCC funnels are for, or Paranoia. Heck, even BEMCI or B/X D&D (and AD&D to a lesser extent) is better for that.

I think that it was much earlier in this thread where it was discussed, but a dead PC doesn't always equal a player going through character creation. D&d is very much a game where death is a revolving door that runs on the party's coin purse and the social/metaphysical debts they willing to take on. Even at very low levels there is the option of just change the name on a sheet a Bob the $class becomes $Bill the $sameclass..

Those consequences of powering that revolving door are very much a net positive on fostering teamwork and player investment in the world