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

[EzekielRaiden]

Yeah, I think that is rather different situation. I just thinking about your dragon earring setup. Do the players know it is path to potential resurrection? Because sometimes, to some people, such Deus Exes would actually cheapen the narrative if they're suddenly sprung on them. But different people react to these things differently.

They don't, but they could learn. They do know they can call on his aid in dire need. This was my compromise; the characters found out Shen was a dragon, and decided to ask him for his aid. I, as GM, did not want to make this the "Tenryu Shen GMPC Show", so I proposed a compromise. Shen is operating undercover (tracking a black dragon hiding in the city, can't show his true power), so he gave the party the earrings. They know the white earrings allow communication and the red ones can be crushed to call on Shen's aid. They have not investigated the earrings any further, other than learning that they each carry a tiny piece of Shen's soul, and thus he is always with them (but politely avoids being "eyes on" most of the time). Thus, while the benefit is there and they could discover it if they went looking, they haven't, so they don't know about that part.

One of my negative past gaming experiences was a game where the GM obviously didn't want the characters to die, so they kept contriving reasons for us to survive, even though sensibly we shouldn't have. And it annoyed me so I started to intentionally play my character super recklessly, in attempt to get them killed. (Not most mature approach, but that was long time ago.) In the end, I didn't manage to kill my character, though I don't think it was very long campaign. But to me that was way worse than my character just dying, it destroyed all the tension and made the events seem super artificial. And ultimately made me feel that I had no agency; I was no allowed to fail, so success was meaningless. And it is not an experience I want as player, nor it is an experience I want to provide to my players. And I'm not saying that you're doing this, but I am trying to explain what I want to avoid.

Oh, I certainly wouldn't do that. And if you go recklessly seeking death? That ain't random no more, you want a death, you can absolutely have one! The offer is simply there if the player would prefer to continue playing that PC, even if the PC must change as a result of the prices paid for their revival/survival.

Basically, I just don't care for "random orc #12 killed you with a lucky crit" or "random <behir/beholder/whatever> hit you with an instant-death move and you failed your one save to avoid it" stuff, because I find those deaths incredibly boring and story-ending. I don't think such deaths add anything particularly worthwhile to a game I'm running. So, if the player would prefer that that event have some other permanent and problematic consequence that isn't death? We'll work it out. If they're totally cool with the character dying and staying dead? No worries, that's as easy as doing nothing whatever, and I am a connoisseur of doing nothing whatever.

And, I should note, one of my favorite tropes, both as player and as GM, is the separated party (lone dead soul, the rest having to struggle on without them) revealing things about their relationship that the players can know, but the characters don't, creating a rare form of purely sincere, positive dramatic irony. Those sorts of moments are what allow silly or irreverent characters show how much their (so-called) stuffy and bossy allies matter to them, or that stuffy-and-bossy character revealing how proud they are about what the dead irreverent character had done, etc. That sort of stuff is the drama and interaction I live for in TTRPG play, so I am 110% down for a "you must journey your way through the Underworld while your friends figure out a way to revive you" type scenario. That sort of thing is so, so satisfying when the group is on board for it.

Our opinions are shaped by our past experiences, I think your frequent low level TPKs might have shaped your approach into a different direction.

I mean, probably? But I was already pretty sensitive about PC deaths before that. Hell, I grieved more for the ally deaths in my favorite 4e campaign than the actual players of those characters did! (They also got better, but it was costly, each and every time.) That 4e game actually did have the bit I just mentioned in the previous paragraph, too. I still remember when the cheeky, irreverent dronesmith (it was a sci-fantasy game) petitioned a powerful AI to resurrect my character, not just spin up a brand-new body (resurrections cost a lot more resources, naturally.) She opened with the pragmatic. "He was the only one who heard the information we need. And..." She paused, despite herself. "And he was our friend."

Those five words meant more to me as a player than many entire sessions of play, because it meant I had succeeded. I had portrayed someone stalwart, brave, and true--aka stodgy and law-bothering--who had genuinely inspired the person least like that, the person most likely to scoff at such outdated conceptions.

 

[prabe]

If folks still kept multiple PCs active in a campaign, this would be less of an issue.

I think there'd still be some amount of "sit tight" unless the players were all running multiple PCs in the same adventure. Just more "sit tight until we get your other character here" instead of "sit tight until we get your character back alive."

Aside, of course, from that sort of troupe play not really being the experience most people want from TRPGs these days. It's arguably harder to identify closely with three or five characters than it is with one.

 

[dave2008]

...is forced to obey, even though I've said over and over and over again that I know it's not for everyone and that it is merely a useful tool for those interested in it.

That is probably be the truth (not going to check, just taking your word for it). However, I have read a lot of your posts and the impression, the feeling that often comes across is that your way is the kind, rational, sane, accommodating path that everyone should take. They may not have to, but they are a bit of an ***hole if they don't.

I want to be clear, I am not saying that is what you mean or what your stance is. In fact, I don't believe what I said above is true. But I often get that feeling from your posts, and I would guess that other people are getting a similar feeling resulting in some of the reactions you are getting.

I know you often make me feel, and I believe it is unintentional, like I'm a d*** DM and unwilling to change or accommodate players. When I could hardly be farther from the that, yet somehow you still make me feel that way. I have read enough of your posts to believe that is not your intent, but your writing style just grinds me that way. Honestly can't speak for others of course.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I think there'd still be some amount of "sit tight" unless the players were all running multiple PCs in the same adventure. Just more "sit tight until we get your other character here" instead of "sit tight until we get your character back alive."

Aside, of course, from that sort of troupe play not really being the experience most people want from TRPGs these days. It's arguably harder to identify closely with three or five characters than it is with one.

Well, you know any argument predicated on popularity (or lack thereof) isn't going to get much traction with me. Not sure why people have to bring in faceless masses to support their arguments and can't just speak for themselves.

In any case, bringing along some henchman goes a long way toward filling in that play gap when your PC bites it.

 

[Vaalingrade]

I am not complaining it is hard to kill the PCs. I have sometimes however complained though, that the official (5.0) guidelines are insufficient for challenging the players. That I want the players to feel challenged, that they actually need to play smart, and use tactics and that the fights are engaging and exiting for them doesn't mean that I want to kill the PCs. Killing PCs is not the goal, but it is possible side effect for the content being genuinely challenging.

Like it is more fun to win, if it seemed possible that you could actually lose, that it was actually difficult, that you accomplished something. Perhaps you don't feel that way, but it is hardly a strange sentiment.

Now the ease of resurrection is another matter however. I really dislike comic-book-style revolving deaths door, where no one stays dead, so death becomes meaningless. I don't want to trivialise death, I want it to have the dramatic impact it should have.

This still only really works if you assume 'survive or die' is the only actual challenge available.

I know for a fact (because I did it Saturday) that you can have engaging and exciting combats that require tactics without death on the table.

And though it's been walked back to better fit an argument, this is the point I'm making about how the characters don't know they can't die.

The players know their characters can't die unless they want them to because we don't need the stress of threatening to take away a character someone has worked hard on developing and who has many connections and story arcs in the campaign.

The characters, however don't know this. And we are roleplaying those characters. So the characters still act with proper-in character motivations and understanding.

Again, that's the value of accepting the game being a game and the presence of a narrative: we can separate these things out from each other and reap the benefits of both out out of character understanding, the roles we are playing, and the story we are telling, rather than having the incongruity inherent to playing a roleplaying game and there being a meta ruin things for use because we can't square them in the same space--because they don't occupy the same space and we acknowledge that.

 

[tetrasodium]

Y'know, I'm a firm believer both in starting from first level and in getting them to third quickly (my ideal is three sessions, one at first and two at second). That was very much my understanding of the intent, reading the rules and looking at XP tables (though I've never used XP for advancement in 5e). I'm not arguing with you hard, here, just saying that the culture-of-play that's obsessed with trapping PCs at low levels isn't anything close to universal--and is probably mostly limited to playstyles we'd both find ... unpleasant.

Most of my games have players leveling at far slower rates than average, but I've never had a player claim they felt trapped or expressed similar feelings about those low levels of play. It's a play style that absolutely is not likely to find appeal in players who are really into 5e's Super Hero to Super Hero Plus power curve, but the fragility of low level PC's is important in that style of low level play because so much of the play amounts to some form of worldbuilding through PCs establishing ties to the world & establishing themselves as reliable trustworthy problem solvers. That tends to happen through the PCs treating trivial★ problems in the world as serious issues that can & should be handled before they require the attention of higher level & more established adventurers who need to be heading off & dealing with more serious problems that those up & coming fresh faced but inexperienced adventurers could only die to. IME it's far more common for a PC to die because a new book came out & Bob wants to play $NewThing than it is for a low level PC to die in a game that might take multiple sessions per level.

★To better established & higher leveled parties of adventurers

 

[OptionalRule]

I mean, if it's Jeff's character, at least once a session.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

If folks still kept multiple PCs active in a campaign, this would be less of an issue.

Well, at least for me, it's really difficult to invest into multiple characters as much as I wish to invest in a character. As in, I would really, really struggle with that. Having a stable of characters would push me hard toward a pure pawn-stance game, and I don't really get much enjoyment out of that perspective on play.

It would be like asking an actor to play a main character in not just one show, but half a dozen shows, simultaneously. Some really good actors are probably quite capable of that. Most, however, would quail at the schedule requirements and might run into issues with performing so many entirely different people consistently, especially with long gaps between different performances.

Having a stable of PCs is a valid and even wise approach for old-school styles of play. It isn't really compatible with the styles of play that interest me. If D&D purports to serve all those styles--as it clearly does, what with cooperating with Critical Role and other highly-narrative, long-form D&D podcast series--then it cannot be designed predicated on the idea that each player definitely will have a stable of PCs so that any single one dying is "easy come, easy go."

I do think that, perhaps as a more advanced optional rule, (maybe something in an early major supplement? Or a freely-available conversion-guide type thing?) it would be good to have rules for how to very quickly draft up a reasonably effective PC for various classes. That would help support players who prefer the "character stable" approach, without mandating that people use that approach.

 

[Micah Sweet]

That is probably be the truth (not going to check, just taking your word for it). However, I have read your a lot of your posts and the impression, the feeling that often comes across is that your way is the kind, rational, sane, accommodating path that everyone should take. They may not have to, but they are a bit of an ***hole if they don't.

I want to be clear, I am not saying that is what you mean or what your stance is. In fact, I don't believe what I said above is true. But I often get that feeling from your posts, and I would guess that other people are getting a similar feeling resulting in some of the reactions you are getting.

I know you often make me feel, and I believe it is unintentional, like I'm a d*** DM and unwilling to change or accommodate players. When I could hardly be father from the that, yet somehow you still make me feel that way. I have read enough of your posts to believe that is not your intent, but your writing style just grinds me that way. Honestly can't speak others of course.

I agree. I don't think that's your goal, but I have more than once gotten that impression from your posts. I'm trying to push past it personally, because I find your point of view very interesting.

 

[prabe]

Well, you know any argument predicated on popularity (or lack thereof) isn't going to get much traction with me. Not sure why people have to bring in faceless masses to support their arguments and can't just speak for themselves.

In any case, bringing along some henchman goes a long way toward filling in that play gap when your PC bites it.

The point of my "argument predicated on popularity" was merely that you seemed to be complaining that people don't play the way you want them to.

And the "when" in your last sentence seems to imply a playstyle I'd likely find deeply unsatisfying in play. Why would (or should) I try to run for a playstyle I wouldn't want to play?