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%

For what it's worth, there is - in my view, at least - basically no overlap between an approach to RPGing that uses henchmen and hirelings in the classic D&D mould, and an approach in which a player has "a story that they wanted to tell".

The only counterexamples I can think of are, perhaps, Dungeon World and Torchbearer, and I'm not convinced that the way they use hirelings counts as being "in the classic D&D mould".

If part of the goal of someone's RPGing is "to tell a story that they want to tell", then I think they're best served just doing that, not trying to shore up a deficiency in their system - namely, the risk of random and narratively pointless death - by using henchmen or hirelings as a pool of back-up protagonists.
Sure. I don't disagree with any of this. My response is coming from the previous conversation I had had with Lanefan, where this--taking up the hench's story as part of the continuing story of the party--was offered as the thing being pursued when I said I find PC death story-ending. Paraphrasing: "It's not the end of the story. The party's story goes on, and now you get to find out what this character's story will be. Maybe it will end badly, maybe it won't." I hope it's clear why that would be a...rather unpalatable offer for my preferences.
 

log in or register to remove this ad


I have, however, had numerous people tell me that my approach is:
  1. Destructive to the game in its entirety (not in this thread, but in previous ones)
  2. "Automatic wins" for the players, where they do absolutely nothing and yet succeed perfectly 100% of the time
  3. Mere "story time" with no gameplay and no challenge
  4. Incapable of producing any stakes whatsoever
  5. Even if it can produce stakes, none of them could ever have gameplay impact
  6. Even if it can produce gameplay-impacting stakes, none of them are as significant or universal as character death
Clearly you’ve been busy! All you need now is “Un-American” and “bad for your teeth”.
 


It was a surprise for me to find out many years later that he didn't play that way.
yes, was surprised by that too, why even write all that untested, cumbersome stuff you are not even using yourself…

in retrospect that validates my decision to throw some stuff out when reading the rules back then ;)
 


No one cares about your playstyle. We care about your use of terms, especially as they impact our own playstyle's presentation.
You mean story? I think I've been pretty clear what I mean by that, and acknowledge the issue is one of definition. Not sure how that can reasonably be seen as insulting.
 

Then why was the question asked?
People seem to be tired of how it's common for others to redefine words or expressions to suit their needs.
It's ironic for you to tell others that adventure hook is a common use term when you are the one whos been redefining what "your" definition of story is.

We get it. We all play differently. And I know...were all volunteers here so we all get what's coming to us for continuing the conversation even long after the point has been whittled down to...."that's not how I do it."
 

What is an "adventure hook"? And is that a "diegetic" concept - do people in the imagined world of your RPGing really wander around looing for "hooks" to motivate them into adventurous action?
Sometimes, yes they do. :)

A party that finds itself at a loose end and with nothing obvious on its plate might put out feelers as to whether there's any jobs or missions need doing; and if there are, whether those missions are within what the PCs in-character think they can a) handle and b) be interested in doing.

In my settings the PCs are most certainly not the only adventurers out there; and the different classes tend to more or less loosely associate in guilds. There's mercenaries' guilds for warrior types, mages' guilds, thieves' guilds, bard colleges, monk monasteries, cleric temples, and so on; and some of these tend to become hubs for "news" about adventuring possibilities (and that news may or may not be the least bit up to date).

Thus, a Fighter in a party looking for adventure might head down to the merc's guild and there hear rumours of Orcs raiding farms in the western hills, that Giants have been sighted in the Kertchen Pass, that the old Argoth Tower has lit up again, and that a group of neophyte adventurers have failed to return from a trek into the eastern forest.

Investigating these rumours might reveal that someone's long-since already gone to (in theory) deal with the Orcs, that the Giant sightings have been confirmed and are becoming more frequent, that there's a long and sorry tale around what happened the last time Argoth Tower showed signs of life 30 years ago, and that a lone survivor of the missing party wandered into Lelivil (a small eastern village) last week with no idea where she was and speaking of tentacled horrors beyond imagining.

From here the players would have their characters, in-character, decide if any of these possibilities appealed, and if yes they'd take steps to folow up and get involved. If two or more missions appeal they might even split the party (and recruit more characters to fill out both groups, if needed) and try doing both (at the table this would translate into playing one group through its mission then we'd flip to the other group and play through their mission). If none of the missions appealed, they might try their luck elsewhere pr just decide to take some time off.
 

People seem to be tired of how it's common for others to redefine words or expressions to suit their needs.
It's ironic for you to tell others that adventure hook is a common use term when you are the one whos been redefining what "your" definition of story is.

We get it. We all play differently. And I know...were all volunteers here so we all get what's coming to us for continuing the conversation even long after the point has been whittled down to...."that's not how I do it."
I honestly don't see my definition of story as all that aberrant, so I see no irony there.
 

Remove ads

Top