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

[Lanefan]

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.)

Yet from all external points of view it seemed permanent at the time. OK, I see the difference now.

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.

If they interfere with the story (intentionally or otherwise) and send it in a new direction isn't that in itself an act of participating in the story's creation?

For example, if I-as-DM have "story-boarded" out a series of six coastal or maritime adventures to get a campaign started - let's say...

1. (homebrew - introductory)
2. Secret of Saltmarsh
3. Danger at Dunwater
4. Bone Hill
5. (homebrew - pirates)
6. Slavers' Stockade

...but the players/PCs decide after Danger at Dunwater that they never want to see another boat in their lives and head for the inland mountains instead*, they've just upended "my" story and are now creating their own, putting me in react mode where I'm riffing off what they do with or to the setting rather than the reverse.

* - the story of my DMing life, this: I've been trying for ages to run a mostly-maritime campaign but just can't get the players interested in such other than for a single adventure now and then.

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.

Assuming those courses are pre-cut and that the river isn't cutting its own course as it goes.

That the river will start at some preordained high-elevation point X and then flow somewhere is a given; and some of its flow pattern might initially be either a) predetermined or b) somewhat predictable. But sometimes neither a) nor b) survives contact with the players, and after that I-as-DM am in react mode.

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.

Even in the moments of playing her when she hadn't died yet?

'Cause that's what matters most to me as a player: the enjoyment in the there-and-then moment.

Saturday night I'll be playing Lanefan the character and (in theory) will enjoy that session. I just can't understand how my enjoyment of this coming Saturday could be diminished post-hoc should he then perma-die the Saturday after.

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

No, but neither does it mean the game needs be designed with tha tinterest first and foremost.

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.

This could be - and for the next bunch of years will be - a whole big topic of discussion all on its own.

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.

I'm still sitting at the same table with the same friends, aren't I; and still playing in the same campaign? If yes, that's a lot of underlying connection that doesn't even look at what specific character(s) anyone - including me - has in play at the moment.

Now if I was playing with strangers I could see character as being a bigger connection point, but (other than one-offs or convention games) only play with people I already know from elsewhere.

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.

So how do you handle playing multiple characters in the same big sprawling campaign, and cycling them in and out of parties depending on your preference and-or what the party/mission needs at the time?

'Cause that's the background I come from.

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.

Taken to that extent that is, I think, something of a rare and distant-outlier viewpoint.

Far more common, I think, is the sense of characters being to some extent easy come easy go; if for no other reason than that's the most likely take from casual players and casuals represent the vast majority of the hobby's player base.

 

[soviet]

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

I knew you were terrible people!

 

[soviet]

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.

It wasn't written in advance. It was planned in advance. And some things changed in the telling, for a variety of reasons.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

If they interfere with the story (intentionally or otherwise) and send it in a new direction isn't that in itself an act of participating in the story's creation?

If you ask the chef to cook your steak medium-rare, area you participating in the cooking of the steak?

Or are you simply setting the conditions for how someone else will do all of the cooking?

...but the players/PCs decide after Danger at Dunwater that they never want to see another boat in their lives and head for the inland mountains instead*, they've just upended "my" story and are now creating their own, putting me in react mode where I'm riffing off what they do with or to the setting rather than the reverse.

Are they? Or have they simply said, "Give us something else, chef"? Because, again, there is a difference between accepting or refusing the story created by someone else, and actually being part of making that story.

Assuming those courses are pre-cut and that the river isn't cutting its own course as it goes.

Sure. That's the heart of "trad" and most forms of "neo-trad." Even when it appears you're making your own choices, you're just choosing from the slate of options provided. You are not actually authoring anything, you are existing within and reacting to the world already created by someone else.

Even in the moments of playing her when she hadn't died yet?

All of a few hours? I mean, I guess, but that's like asking if someone suffering critically low blood sugar enjoys getting a single mouthful of food or water. Like...yes, but it's not enough, and as soon as it's gone, I need more or I need something else.

'Cause that's what matters most to me as a player: the enjoyment in the there-and-then moment.

What matters most for me as a player is the fulfillment of a bigger, grander thing, whether it be individual, player-to-player, or player-to-world. Two sessions where nothing really happens cannot even begin to approach that.

Saturday night I'll be playing Lanefan the character and (in theory) will enjoy that session. I just can't understand how my enjoyment of this coming Saturday could be diminished post-hoc should he then perma-die the Saturday after.

Well, I can't tell you how you should feel. But for me, it would be like if I were carving a statue out of marble, and someone dropped the piece I was working with two days after I had started, shattering it. Yes, I might have enjoyed the few hours I spent on it, but the loss sours the work because it reminds me of the things that can never be fulfilled.

No, but neither does it mean the game needs be designed with tha tinterest first and foremost.

Have I ever even once said it should? I have been explicit in essentially every post that this is NOT for everyone, but that the game should work to at least be compatible with this preference. As it stands, it really isn't.

I'm still sitting at the same table with the same friends, aren't I; and still playing in the same campaign? If yes, that's a lot of underlying connection that doesn't even look at what specific character(s) anyone - including me - has in play at the moment.

But I can get "spend time with friends" anywhere. I can get "still playing the same thing" anywhere. I cannot get the culmination of a satisfying, personally-meaningful narrative just anywhere. That's something I can pretty much ONLY get from TTRPGs. That's why I play them, instead of doing a dozen other things instead.

Now if I was playing with strangers I could see character as being a bigger connection point, but (other than one-offs or convention games) only play with people I already know from elsewhere.

I have only played in one game that lasted more than 4-5 sessions where I knew even most of the other participants, let alone all of them. The vast majority of my gaming has been with loose acquaintances or total strangers.

So how do you handle playing multiple characters in the same big sprawling campaign, and cycling them in and out of parties depending on your preference and-or what the party/mission needs at the time?

That's the neat thing. I don't. I play one character. That's all I'm interested in playing.

Taken to that extent that is, I think, something of a rare and distant-outlier viewpoint.

And I think it is quite commonplace. It may not be the majority, but it isn't some rare obscurity.

Far more common, I think, is the sense of characters being to some extent easy come easy go; if for no other reason than that's the most likely take from casual players and casuals represent the vast majority of the hobby's player base.

Not at all. This is definitely the minority viewpoint, and it has been for some time now. A huge swathe of people who got into D&D via 5e did so because of things like Critical Role, The Adventure Zone, and other D&D podcasts which are VERY character-driven narratives. Further, even people who didn't get in through that avenue instead did so because of video games (including BG3, albeit that came quite late), books/movies (like Lord of the Rings), or quite commonly MMOs, because those are inherently social gaming experiences that are already closely allied to/descended from D&D.

People get attached to their characters pretty quickly. It's quite natural. Most people do not take such a hardcore pawn stance position.

 

[Lanefan]

If you ask the chef to cook your steak medium-rare, area you participating in the cooking of the steak?

Or are you simply setting the conditions for how someone else will do all of the cooking?

Given as I'm usually at a restaurant specifically so someone else can do the cooking, I'm not sure how this maps to what we're talking about.

Are they? Or have they simply said, "Give us something else, chef"? Because, again, there is a difference between accepting or refusing the story created by someone else, and actually being part of making that story.

Sure. That's the heart of "trad" and most forms of "neo-trad." Even when it appears you're making your own choices, you're just choosing from the slate of options provided. You are not actually authoring anything, you are existing within and reacting to the world already created by someone else.

You're both. You're existing within and reacting to the world already created by someone else, and at the same time you're authoring something whenever you (in-character) force that world to react to you and what you do.

All of a few hours? I mean, I guess, but that's like asking if someone suffering critically low blood sugar enjoys getting a single mouthful of food or water. Like...yes, but it's not enough, and as soon as it's gone, I need more or I need something else.

What matters most for me as a player is the fulfillment of a bigger, grander thing, whether it be individual, player-to-player, or player-to-world. Two sessions where nothing really happens cannot even begin to approach that.

See below...look for the '***' mark...

But I can get "spend time with friends" anywhere.

Must be nice. The great majority of the contact I have with friends these days is through the games we play in or run. Even when we gather for a party, odds are someone will end up running a gonzo one-off D&D game.

I have only played in one game that lasted more than 4-5 sessions where I knew even most of the other participants, let alone all of them. The vast majority of my gaming has been with loose acquaintances or total strangers.

This does explain some of your stances, to an extent.

That's the neat thing. I don't. I play one character. That's all I'm interested in playing.

Man, you'd hate my campaigns where there's almost always more than one party in the field at the same in-game time, meaning you have to have multiple characters if only because one character can't be in muptiple places at once.

People get attached to their characters pretty quickly. It's quite natural. Most people do not take such a hardcore pawn stance position.

*** That's just it: in the moment, for me it's (ideally) not pawn stance. I'd rather be as immersed in the character I'm playing as I can, while that character is alive and in play. It ain't always perfect, but good enough is good enough. And that's where the enjoyment comes from if there's to be any: that in-the-moment play of the character.

However, I'm also capable of very quickly - as in, almost immediately - pivoting out of that immersion in order to become immersed in another character if that's what's needed to keep me in the game, e.g. when my character's died and I need to roll up a replacement. I'm also capable of bouncing from character to character in the same scene and becoming at least somewhat immersed in each; this a skill learned through 40 years of DMing where one often has to characterize and roleplay numerous NPCs within a short time, and it comes in very handy when playing two characters in the same party (a common thing here).

 

[KYRON45]

EzekielRaiden said:
I have only played in one game that lasted more than 4-5 sessions where I knew even most of the other participants, let alone all of them. The vast majority of my gaming has been with loose acquaintances or total strangers.

I simply couldn't imagine playing like this.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I simply couldn't imagine playing like this.

Is it really that weird? People put up postings looking for players or games all the time. Are they really shouting into the void so much? It just seems very strange to me that we have not just one website, but many websites (and forums, and Discord servers, and...) where people look for players and/or game-runners and seem to actually succeed a fair amount of the time. Almost all of those games are going to be ones where you know at best one or two people at the table beyond "I read their posts on a forum" level. (Which is part of what I mean by "loose acquaintances.")

 

[KYRON45]

Is it really that weird? People put up postings looking for players or games all the time. Are they really shouting into the void so much? It just seems very strange to me that we have not just one website, but many websites (and forums, and Discord servers, and...) where people look for players and/or game-runners and seem to actually succeed a fair amount of the time. Almost all of those games are going to be ones where you know at best one or two people at the table beyond "I read their posts on a forum" level. (Which is part of what I mean by "loose acquaintances.")

It's weird for me.
I'm saying that it's too bad that you haven't been able to develop the long term chemistry that I feel is; for me, required to have a great gaming experience. I've been with groups where making characters took a month or more.
I like deep characters with relationships not only with each other but with the story (the very one that so many other insists isn't happening), and the setting. Like any group activity chemistry is important. I've never been in a campaign that didn't last at least a year. Which for our schedule is an estimated 20-30 sessions.
I guess i'm pretty fortunate that i've either played with close friends, or had time to make new friends.

It's my understanding that "pick up" games are great too. You get to try new systems, experience different characters and if you get lucky add people to your gaming circle. Unfortunately the logistics of game play have always been its greatest downfall. Who do i play with? Where do we play? When do we play? With any luck it all comes together from time to time and we have great experiences.

I would never suggest that how I play is better than how you play.
Game your own game.

 

[tetrasodium]

Is it really that weird? People put up postings looking for players or games all the time. Are they really shouting into the void so much? It just seems very strange to me that we have not just one website, but many websites (and forums, and Discord servers, and...) where people look for players and/or game-runners and seem to actually succeed a fair amount of the time. Almost all of those games are going to be ones where you know at best one or two people at the table beyond "I read their posts on a forum" level. (Which is part of what I mean by "loose acquaintances.")

Yes it's extremely odd unless you had just started playing or are deliberately seeking out something like an open table AL game and going out of your way to avoid any sort of continuity in gm or players you were playing with. Almost every gm would develop a group of regulars and do things like ask if other GM's can take a newbie if they were full up when I was running AL twice a week for years.

It's such an unusual thing that I might consider a player saying it to be waving a red flag in ways that justify reevaluating everything they had said or done at my table/pregame chat in a new light.

 

[Emerikol]

I have only played in one game that lasted more than 4-5 sessions where I knew even most of the other participants, let alone all of them. The vast majority of my gaming has been with loose acquaintances or total strangers.

I think a lot of the divide about gaming is how we experience the game. I've almost always had people in my games that I know. If I have a new player then he or she is the singular new player. Most of the time I have veterans.

With this sort of play as your norm, I can see why we are like people from entirely different planets.