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

[Lanefan]

The first step in solving problems is to develop a goal; which is what this thread is trying to do. Though use of level may not be the best unit of measurement

Agree that per-level isn't the most useful measurement, not just for deaths-per but for almost anything; even less so if-when the PCs aren't all the same level all the time. Per adventure is more useful, or maybe even per session (or per five sessions, or per ten), if one's campaign doesn't have discrete adventures in its structure.

Personally, I use both per-adventure and per-session as metrics: not all adventures are the same length and-or complexity and not every session sees the same amount get done, but looking at both smooths out those bumps a little.

 

[Lanefan]

TL;DW: Captain Sheridan goes to the Big Bad Evil Faction's planet and blows up their capital city with some nukes. He escapes the blast by jumping into a nearly-bottomless pit, where an ancient, powerful alien has been living in seclusion for a very, very long time. While he's stuck in there, his friends try to come to his rescue, but fail, and find good evidence that he's dead (namely, the nuclear craters.) The powerful alien guides Sheridan into accepting death without giving up on life, and is thus able to restore him to life--meanwhile, his friends are looking at their efforts to stop the BBEF rapidly unravelling in part because Sheridan is (believed to be) dead.

There's nothing any of them could do to bring him back--as far as they're concerned, he's just dead and that won't change. (Indeed, some of the allies in their splintering alliance accuse them of mounting an assault solely on the vain, pointless hope that Sheridan might be saved, which is their reason/excuse for why they want to back out.) However, with the powerful alien (Lorien) present, Sheridan's death was never going to entirely stick, at least for the foreseeable future. It still has consequences, he lives a dramatically shorter life as a result of all this, but he's able to get done what needs doing.

Hence, it's a death that the players cannot do anything to fix (irrevocable), but it isn't a death that stays dead (non-permanent). A similar sort of thing might occur even in a D&D context where, for example,

...yes? (your example got chopped off somewhere in posting, not by me)

And if I'm reading that right, Sheridan knows going in that he'll be able to come back from death? That certainly makes it non-permanent from his (or in D&D, his player's) perspective.

That is not the only way to build story though. That's the point. You can also have "story before", which is what "trad" play generally favors. It features heavy worldbuilding from the author-style DM, to which the players are merely reactive respondents. Dragonlance is a pretty archetypal example of "story before." The controversial "metaplot" of the 2e version of Dark Sun is another example of "story before."

There's also what might be called "story alongside", where things go on in background parts of the setting that the PCs don't touch and the PCs may or may not hear about - or even be affected by - those things later; meanwhile the PCs do what they do and their own story emerges from that.

There's a difference, too, in Dragonlance-style story-before (where the whole thing runs to a predetermined outcome) and what I prefer, which is that there's one or more potential stories laid out but the outcome(s) - or even the path of the story/stories; they can always left-turn to something else - is not determined until after the players/PCs do whatever they decide to do or not do.

Further, you can have "story now", which is what Dungeon World and other Powered by the Apocalypse games (those modeled on the original, called Apocalypse World), as well as other systems in the same vein but doing different things, e.g. Blades in the Dark and relatives (games "Forged in the Dark"), Ironsworn, etc. "Story now" is when the process of playing your character IS the process of telling a story. Rather than having a story already written to which the player responds, or no story at all until after the players have taken many actions and reflect back on them, "story now" makes the actual process of play into storytelling and protagonism. (4e D&D also contained relatively primitive, but still fully real, tools for "story now" play. Wise, engaging use of Skill Challenges and fluid, responsive "off-label" usage of powers were major components of this approach.)

I've had story-now explained to me before in a few different ways, most of which (despite the explainers' best attempts) mostly come across to me as nothing I'd want any real part of.

Yes. But it is boring to constantly spend time focusing on the 57.9% of bricks that did nothing, got nowhere, had no impact, and were completely forgotten along the way. That's the whole point here. We game in order to get something interesting out of it. Spending genuinely much more than half of our time focusing on things that accomplish jack-all is not interesting.

In about 1985 I played a character named Terriann. She was a low-level MU coming new into a higher-level party, and her played career consisted of meeting the party, making it halfway to her first adventure, getting breathed on by a Black Dragon, and keeling over dead. Three sessions, tops.

The fact that I still remember this, 39 years later, tells me that playing her was not at all a waste of time. Did she contribute much to her party? No. Did her own story get told? No, other than its acid-drenched end. Did she give me a few memories I still carry today? Yes. And the last of these is the only thing that matters, in a personal sense for who a character was and what it did and in a group sense for what the party was and did.

You say "we are not writing a novel here," but the problem with that assertion is that kinda is what some folks want. They don't want a novel proper, sure, but they DO want to be telling an ongoing, meaningful story with impactful characters who matter and who effect change (good, bad, or ambiguous) along their journey, changing themselves, one another, and the world around them.

More or less, in your strident rejection of anything even remotely novel-like, you have rejected something a LOT--and I really do mean a LOT--of players genuinely, deeply love.

We're into comparing anecdotal experience here but I suspect that "lot of players" isn't as widespread as you seem to think.

And, more importantly, it's something that cannot, even in principle, be acquired from computer games nor MMOs. There simply aren't enough resources to get video games that do this kind of tailored storytelling. It has to be pure "story before" with video games, but a lot of people really actually do love getting some "story now" play.

I agree video games can't give the same experience...yet. Given enough time and processor power the day will come when they'll be able to a) generate bespoke setting elements (places, NPCs, etc.) on the fly based on where the player goes and what the player does there, b) seamlessly integrate those new setting elements into what was already present for that player, and c) store and remember those setting elements for the rest of that campaign.

I don't understand how you can possibly get this out of what I said. I am specifically saying that players NEED the history in order to feel invested--and if their characters keep dying, they don't have that history! Every character that dies is deleting history they've been invested in!

To the bolded: yes they do. The history of a dead character and what it did is not deleted. Otherwise it'd be like saying the history of Queen Elizabeth II and what she did will be deleted because she's dead. The character's history remains, in the memories of the players and (one hopes!) in the campaign's logs and records.

Just because I'm not playing the same character all the way through a campaign doesn't mean I-as-player lose touch with that campaign's history, and in-fiction I just assume the veterans will tell these stories to my new recruit over the campfire each night until I've heard them all.

 

[Lanefan]

The Sheridan stuff is from Babylon 5, by the way.

Ah. Thanks. I suffered through half an episode of that once and haven't looked at it since.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

...yes? (your example got chopped off somewhere in posting, not by me)

My apologies, I got distracted and failed to come back to that thought. A D&D party might lose an ally to a heroic sacrifice, and then that ally gets scooped up and saved by some kind of Big Good force that doesn't want that heroic sacrifice to have been in vain. Sorta like what happened to Gandalf in LOTR; his death was non-permanent but irrevocable. He DID die, it wasn't random but a very intentional sacrifice, and there wasn't a damned thing anyone else in that world could do about it. But he was Sent Back, with some of his power limiters removed. Irrevocable (nothing the "PC"-equivalents could do about it), but not permanent (Eru Iluvatar fixes it by direct divine intervention, something He very rarely does.)

And if I'm reading that right, Sheridan knows going in that he'll be able to come back from death? That certainly makes it non-permanent from his (or in D&D, his player's) perspective.

No. He has a glimmer of hope, and that's it. He and the alien, Lorien, have this conversation just before an episode ends:
L: "I cannot create life. But I can breathe upon the remaining embers. (pause) It may not work."
S: "But...I can hope."
L: (echoing) "Hope...is all we have."

There's also what might be called "story alongside", where things go on in background parts of the setting that the PCs don't touch and the PCs may or may not hear about - or even be affected by - those things later; meanwhile the PCs do what they do and their own story emerges from that.

That's just "story before" that happens sequentially, which is pretty much mandatory for any long-running campaign. (Nobody can be expected to write multi-year tabletop stories 100% purely in advance--not even Dragonlance was plotted that thoroughly.) That is, it's been written before and separately from what the players will do to/around it, albeit after other, prior things the players have done. They can investigate it, respond to it, interfere with it--all of the reactive things one can do with story--but they do not actually participate in its creation. Likewise, "story after" can happen sequentially as well. "Story now" is inherently sequential, because...the moment that is "now" is always moving.

There's a difference, too, in Dragonlance-style story-before (where the whole thing runs to a predetermined outcome) and what I prefer, which is that there's one or more potential stories laid out but the outcome(s) - or even the path of the story/stories; they can always left-turn to something else - is not determined until after the players/PCs do whatever they decide to do or not do.

Sure. But all of those endings were still, to some degree, prewritten. You are not deciding the course of the river, you are merely picking whether it flows through the pre-cut east course or west course.

I've had story-now explained to me before in a few different ways, most of which (despite the explainers' best attempts) mostly come across to me as nothing I'd want any real part of.

I mean, that's fair, but just because it isn't for you doesn't mean it's for nobody. Making hard, blanket statements that disallow anyone else from doing "story now" with D&D, or any game for that matter, comes across as pretty presumptive.

In about 1985 I played a character named Terriann. She was a low-level MU coming new into a higher-level party, and her played career consisted of meeting the party, making it halfway to her first adventure, getting breathed on by a Black Dragon, and keeling over dead. Three sessions, tops.

The fact that I still remember this, 39 years later, tells me that playing her was not at all a waste of time.

I want to reiterate, because it bears repeating: for you. It was not a waste of time for you. It would be a waste of time for me. I would not derive any enjoyment from that character, and the only reason I would ever remember such a character afterward is specifically because I so thoroughly did not derive any enjoyment from playing her.

We're into comparing anecdotal experience here but I suspect that "lot of players" isn't as widespread as you seem to think.

Alright. Does that mean this interest must then be driven out of the hobby and refused admittance?

I agree video games can't give the same experience...yet. Given enough time and processor power the day will come when they'll be able to a) generate bespoke setting elements (places, NPCs, etc.) on the fly based on where the player goes and what the player does there, b) seamlessly integrate those new setting elements into what was already present for that player, and c) store and remember those setting elements for the rest of that campaign.

I disagree. There's a lot one can do. I don't think any non-sapient AI--no matter how advanced--can replicate the responsiveness of an actual DM. And an actually sapient AI used in this way would be slavery.

To the bolded: yes they do. The history of a dead character and what it did is not deleted. Otherwise it'd be like saying the history of Queen Elizabeth II and what she did will be deleted because she's dead. The character's history remains, in the memories of the players and (one hopes!) in the campaign's logs and records.

Yes, it is. None of the connections matter anymore. They're as dead as the character. We, IRL, can investigate and look up history. But when we take on a role, that role matters. It isn't some flimsy nothing, a mere gossamer shawl. It is what anchors one to the world. Each and every time that anchor is destroyed, you have to rebuild it from the ground up. You must re-invent (or re-discover, if you prefer) your investment in the setting. That the history fictionally exists does remain, yes. Whether it matters, however, does not remain. And it's the mattering that counts. Things with no meaning, with no substance, provide no enjoyment. Each and every time you cut the thread of connection to the game, you have to rebuild it, practically from scratch.

Just because I'm not playing the same character all the way through a campaign doesn't mean I-as-player lose touch with that campaign's history, and in-fiction I just assume the veterans will tell these stories to my new recruit over the campfire each night until I've heard them all.

I do. Each and every time a character I'm playing dies, I lose the vast, overwhelming majority of my connection to that campaign's history. Your "I just assume" is something I actually need to have happen, "on screen", explicitly. Otherwise, I will never rebuild the connection I had before. It will never be as connected as the lost character was. I simply cannot become invested without playing through that. Which is why I have been saying what I've been saying. For you, such investment is a trivial effort, a nothing, easier than breathing. For me? It's monumental. I must start from ground zero every single time I try to invest into a new character.

It would be like...being an author, and someone rolls 2d100 after every page you write. If it comes up 00 00, you have to scrap ALL the actual novel writing you've done and start over, though you can still use your prewriting, but not any characters or events. After the second or third time that happened, you'd probably just give up--there's no point in investing THAT MUCH time and energy into a long-form story when it's just going to be taken away from you and all you have left is your prewriting notes. That's how it feels for me to lose a character. I have to scrap the entire "novel" of that character's existence, down to the barest of bare bones, little more than a few pages of setting notes, and then try to write an entirely new novel, without using ANYTHING I used before. I just can't do it.

Again, I'm not saying NOBODY can do this. But I am saying that a lot of people DO view the story of the character, and the story of the "team" (here meaning the specific people on the team, not just the coalition, since you refer to the "party" story as totally disconnected from any individual member thereof), as something damaged beyond repair when a character dies. Something that then must be totally rebuilt, from the ground up, but now running way behind everyone and everything else because, y'know, months or years of development gap.

 

[tetrasodium]

Sorry, but I've no idea who or what Sheridan and-or Lorien are so this example goes completely over my head.

I know who they are and it's a terrible analogy, both are characters in Babylon 5. While Babylon 5ess a great series with a great story... It's also a series that started with all 4-5 seasons planned and written before it started filming or even casting in season 1 to a degree that would neeya whole new word for the level of gm railroading it would imply for a ttrpg. Sometimes it has useful examples for ttrpg comparison, but the main characters are often walking with too large of a footprint.

...yes? (your example got chopped off somewhere in posting, not by me)

And if I'm reading that right, Sheridan knows going in that he'll be able to come back from death? That certainly makes it non-permanent from his (or in D&D, his player's) perspective.

Put simply... It happens in a later season and is discussed as an if I do this thing for you now then I can't be there for you at zahaduun in an early season when the statement was completelu void of meaning to Sheridan and the audience themselves.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I know who they are and it's a terrible analogy, both are characters in Babylon 5. While Babylon 5ess a great series with a great story... It's also a series that started with all 4-5 seasons planned and written before it started filming or even casting in season 1 to a degree that would neeya whole new word for the level of gm railroading it would imply for a ttrpg. Sometimes it has useful examples for ttrpg comparison, but the main characters are often walking with too large of a footprint.

Put simply... It happens in a later season and is discussed as an if I do this thing for you now then I can't be there for you at zahaduun in an early season when the statement was completelu void of meaning to Sheridan and the audience themselves.

It was explicitly described by the creator as a novel for TV, with a beginning, middle and end. Babylon 5 is as story as story gets.

 

[MichaelSomething]

I know who they are and it's a terrible analogy, both are characters in Babylon 5. While Babylon 5ess a great series with a great story... It's also a series that started with all 4-5 seasons planned and written before it started filming or even casting in season 1 to a degree that would neeya whole new word for the level of gm railroading it would imply for a ttrpg. Sometimes it has useful examples for ttrpg comparison, but the main characters are often walking with too large of a footprint.

Put simply... It happens in a later season and is discussed as an if I do this thing for you now then I can't be there for you at zahaduun in an early season when the statement was completelu void of meaning to Sheridan and the audience themselves.

That reminds me of this quote from this topic I had a long time ago...

JMS has 2 great stories from Babylon 5... but the one that I remember best is the death of a character.

as an almost throw away episode he wrote a machine that could drain someones life force to realive another who was on deaths door. He also wrote a character as totally head over heals in love with another character (played for laughs alot). He however also wrote that same character as a big damn hero who was willing to die for what he beleived in...

so he wrote the scene where the person was laying there dieing... and everyone was sad... and they were supposed to die. Then his mind would not let him type it... instead the other big damn hero stole teh machine sacraficed himself and saved the other... keep in mind the now dead character had plots to go, and the one now alive did not have pre planned plots.

could he have just said "and then she died" sure... but it felt right in the moment to say "He saves her" then that just rewrote the narrative.


I have had NPCs that this (not exact) thing has happened with.

 

[tetrasodium]

It was explicitly described by the creator as a novel for TV, with a beginning, middle and end. Babylon 5 is as story as story gets.

Yea but sometimes a story loses too much from a plot thread being simplified to a single point in a comparison. Babylon 5 had a habit of set plot threads unusually far ahead of their eventual interconnected ending or the fact that the comparison is full on Main Character being held up to a PC who can die and be replaced through normal play without a big deal.. yes JMS wrote in escape hatches for all of the characters if the actor needed to go, but what was given to Sheridan wasn't just not being dead, that's a huge risk for a gm to let a player think they got by simple comparison. There's also the fact that lorien was so much more than a powerful alien

 

[Jaiken]

I run my games such that the threat of death is generally ever present. However, I would not want to establish any kind of "character death should happen at X interval" paradigm. Character deaths should happen when they happen due to player choice and/or the vagaries of the dice. So maybe somewhere in between less than once per level but more than once per campaign?

That being said, I have run 5e campaigns where multiple characters have died in the span of a few sessions. One lasted less than an hour in real time. I don't think I've run any campaigns during which no PCs have died, although I did run a campaign where no PCs were replaced. The ones who died were either raised or reincarnated.

Needless to say, I have not voted.

This. So much this. Dice and player (stupid) choice should determine if a character dies.

 

[Lanefan]

This. So much this. Dice and player (stupid) choice should determine if a character dies.

Also sometimes player (not stupid) choice, e.g. a heroic-sacrifice play.