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%

By my calculation, this was about 1,150 xp which for 5 PCs at level 3 puts it just slightly above a moderate difficulty encounter.
Though under the old guidelines it would have been 2875 XP encounter (due the multiplier for several monsters,) well above deadly (2000 XP) for the group. Removal of the difficulty multiplier for numerous foes will make horde encounter in 5.5 way harder than they were in 5.0, and at least on low levels this might be too much. (I have said that the game is way too easy under the old guidelines, but this applies only to medium to high levels.)
 

log in or register to remove this ad

I was responding to Post 593 with that list. Not whatever you are attributing it to with this endless goalpost shifting talk of random pointless and so on. You do however make clear the quicksand foundation under the whole remove PC death &rely on "interesting" consequences thing by not even mentioning how much weight the players need to be lifting to find what they consider interesting consequences they care about and make sure that everyone knows them in addition to the GM even being capable of saying "ok yea that's relevant enough &works with this adventure/campaign".
Why do you need to be so aggressive and hostile? Why do you need to make jabs like "quicksand foundation" and "endless goalpost shifting", neither of which is even remotely accurate to anything I've said in this thread? I've always been very specific and explicit about what I want, why I want it, how I get it, and what effects this has. Folks like you are the ones who have made it their mission to show how I'm actually destroying the game and telling lies and "goalpost shifting" etc., etc., because you have no actual argument, just a lot of ad hominem attacks.

My players don't need to "be lifting" any "weight" to find interesting consequences. Finding interesting consequences IS playing Dungeon World. There is no gap between doing the gameplay of DW and finding interesting consequences. That's the whole point.

IoW: most GM's with ongoing games tend to be thrilled to work with players who are willing to go the extra mile and seem credible in their commitment, but the gm can't be expected to go on a Snipe hunt with each player on the off chance that maybe a given player is very much outside the norm.
It's not weird. It's quite normal. You ask what the players care about, and collaborate to tell stories that involve the things they care about. How is this hard? How is this even remotely "very much outside the norm"? Everyone cares about things. Find out some of those things, and work with them to include that stuff. Hell, I've had the players themselves be straight-up shocked by how much they got drawn into the emotion or impact of a moment, where they really were exercising protagonism, not just being a witness to someone else's prewritten unpublished novella.

I absolutely, flatly refuse to be the kind of DM who just dictates a world at someone and strings them along for the plot I've already written. I also absolutely, flatly refuse to be the kind of DM who uses BS gotchas, oh-so-"funny" traps, and ruthlessly grueling experiences to "teach" my players to be cautious. They already are cautious! If I taught them to be any more cautious, they would stop taking any actions whatsoever!

Instead, as always with Dungeon World, I (1) portray a fantastic world, (2) fill the characters' lives with adventure, and (3) play to find out what happens. As the rules explicitly instruct me to do.

Stop treating the players as passive spectators to be entertained by a gm who needs to step up and start talking about what the players are bringing to the table for the GM to potentially work with when they are the ones to step up as players.
I have never, ever treated my players as "passive spectators to be entertained." I have 100% always treated my players as equal creators. You can get off your high horse and actually RESPOND to the things I say, rather than vilifying me as some sort of game-design boogeyman here to stomp on everything you hold dear.
 
Last edited:

I don't think that this whole thing boils down to a disagreement over "what if d&d could" so much as "some players like this better so here's why you the gm and only you the GM should step way up to make it work" vrs ""uhh no that's on the players to make it happen by setting that stage through the actions their PC's take"
What actions can the players take which ensure that no consequences resulting from rolls are random and permanent and irrevocable character death?

What are these actions? I'd love to know.
 

We gave the subject a lot of space in 1st edition Adventure’s GMing chapter because we’d seen too many cases of people who genuinely wanted to have good pulp fun with Justice Inc and the like, but ran it exactly the way they’d run anything else. We wanted to get them realizing that pulp adventure includes characters and antagonists alike frequently doing ill-considered, unwise things in the face of sensible alternatives, and that Game therefore need to let it happen, to reward players going off impulsively rather than spending a half hour or more working out the minutiae of sensible, prudent plans. Players who zip into action are doing it right for pulp, and the GM needs to make it worth their while. And this is hard for people with habits built up through long experience, even when they really want to.

The overall environment is better now for genres that should reward anti-careful behavior, but it’s definitely not a solved problem.
Exactly!

Pulpy action is what some folks want. Gritty action is what other folks want. I dunno if those two truly lie on a single "spectrum" per se, but they're certainly opposites in a lot of ways. It reminds me of the four most common types of Shadowrun taste, which can (loosely) be placed on two spectra: Black Trenchcoat vs Pink Mohawk, and Brown Business Suit vs Mirrorshades.

"Black Trenchcoat" is the grim, gritty, dangerous, mercenary perspective. You do your jobs, you don't ask any questions you don't need to, you keep your head down, you just make your nuyen and get out. You ice any bystanders that get in the way, you're a cold heartless bastard, etc., etc. "Pink Mohawk" is the loud, the colorful, the punk anarchist. It's about Sticking It To The Man, about having a loud and proud identity, because it's better to burn out than fade away, and hell, if you manage to make it far enough, maybe you can change the world, just a little.

"Brown Business Suit" is the slow, methodical, careful planning. It's the heister who wants to get in and get out without being noticed--unobtrusive and invisible, the subtle knife. That doesn't mean they can't get their hands dirty, but every civilian death is another problem to resolve later. Whatever their causes, they pursue them with focus, discipline, and above all untraceability--you live in the shadows for a reason. "Mirrorshades" is the exact opposite, the Shadowrunner as pop star, the glamorous fighter. You might walk down Main street with a Hellfire cannon, chromed to the nines; or maybe you're casting powerful and dangerous spells in the public square. You have a reputation for style as well as success, and you prove that running the shadows can still be a hell of a good time--and looking good while you do it.

Most SR games will feature a blend of all four styles in different contexts, but the group will tend toward some point in this loose space. I, personally, favor Pink Mohawk and slightly Mirrorshades. I'm all for feel-good runs and sticking it to the man, but I also kind of like the idea of semi-celebrity Shadowrunners, which canonically is a thing in some cases (e.g. one of the Princes of the Tir was a runner for a long time before he cleared his name, and he was quite famous in the shadows.) But I see the appeal of Brown Business Suit, and I understand why a setting as naturally grim and gritty as Shadowrun's would draw folks who like Black Trenchcoat even if it isn't my preference.

As it turns out, many folks like pulpy action stuff and don't find as much joy in slow, painstaking, methodical planning. I appreciate a good plan, but my experience with old-school play (limited, but nonzero!) is that you spend 30+ minutes hashing out a plan that then produces maybe 3 minutes of exciting gameplay thereafter. As an occasional sometimes food, I can get behind that. As the core, the beating heart that drives the play experience forward? No, too much talking, not enough action. That emphatically does not mean that I thus think ZERO talking, ALL action is better! Because in fact I don't, and I get very annoyed with folks who do approach things that way. You need a healthy balance.
 

What actions can the players take which ensure that no consequences resulting from rolls are random and permanent and irrevocable character death?
Death saves with healing word
Revivify
Reincarnate
Raise dead
Resurrection
True Resurrection
Your entire premise is a call to reason that completely rejects the realities of the ruleset in making its case. That is the first problem.

The second is that these discussions go from that rejection of the ruleset's basic realities to dismiss the problems others see as being caused by the removal of a motivating factor that they find important by telling them to do more work and not even acknowledging how it would need to change player responsibilities.

What are these actions? I'd love to know.
Since you clearly are not talking about d&d I would need to pick a random game and hope it might be the game system that you are discussing.
 

I think the people who don't think death needs to always be on the table in a game like D&D might say that neither death nor a career-ending injury is likely to be the primary consequence in a TRPG about ... some competitive league sport with a ball involved. The focus in such a TRPG seems likely to be about winning and losing the individual games/matches, maybe roster management over the course of a season, eh? You absolutely can lose a game of baseball (or tank a whole season) without any of your ace pitchers blowing a UCL; the PCs in a D&D game at least should be able to irrevocably botch a situation without any of them dying. (Most games of D&D plausibly aren't run with that in mind, but I think that's a different thing: It doesn't at all seem to me to say more D&D games couldn't be run with non-death consequences in mind.)
Death of a PC in d&d is the equivalent of loss(of a game/season/etc) in sports. In both you can pick back up & continue on after the setback but no matter what other elements you add to the game it's a universally relevant setback to die in d&d or lose in sports.

That analogy shouldn't leap to death & career ending injury in sports, it should loop back to how removing the universally relevant loss condition impacts play or the workload involved in filling the gaps created in play by removing that loss condition.
 

Death saves with healing word
Revivify
Reincarnate
Raise dead
Resurrection
True Resurrection
Your entire premise is a call to reason that completely rejects the realities of the ruleset in making its case. That is the first problem.

The second is that these discussions go from that rejection of the ruleset's basic realities to dismiss the problems others see as being caused by the removal of a motivating factor that they find important by telling them to do more work and not even acknowledging how it would need to change player responsibilities.

Indeed. In RAW 5e, it is pretty much impossible for anyone to "permanently and irrevocably" die.

Which I find ludicrous, drama destroying, and if assumed to be the common way the reality in the setting works, would totally change how people in the world view death.
 

Regarding narrative and mechanical defeat conditions. Narrative defeat conditions are great, and I think important battles and struggles obviously should have such, regardless of whether mechanical defeat conditions are present or not. However, they also rely much more on the GM's skill to craft situations in which these narrative defeat conditions are present, so I don't think they're a suitable replacement for mechanical defeat conditions for mass-market game aimed also at kids and teenagers, and played by people of varying preferences and skill levels. Whilst I think the game is much more compelling if the fights are about something more than just whether you can survive and loot the dungeon successfully, the game should nevertheless work if played in such simple way.
 

Indeed. In RAW 5e, it is pretty much impossible for anyone to "permanently and irrevocably" die.

Which I find ludicrous, drama destroying, and if assumed to be the common way the reality in the setting works, would totally change how people in the world view death.

Has that changed? Without the GM changing things, we've always had raise dead and usually able to find a helpful cleric in town when needed.
 


Remove ads

Top