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

[EzekielRaiden]

It seems rather arrogant to assume that people would not understand what they want, and you would understand their needs better. Nor I believe the negative experiences of low levels are common. I don't recall many people here besides you complaining about them, and people complain about everything here. This, as they say, seems to be "a you problem."

Oh, no, I'm definitely not the only person who has had this problem, neither on this forum nor in general.

I'd also note, you're conflating two different things: DMs mandating that everyone start at level 1, and players being happy and excited to start at level 1.

With this glorious age of "DM Empowerment!", it is quite common for DMs to do whatever-the-hell-they-feel-like, players be damned. After all, the Empowered DM doesn't put up with such player entitlement. The Empowered DM doesn't need to do such things. They tell the players to jump, and by golly, the only thing those players better say is "How high?"

 

[Chaosmancer]

Oooooor, as I said, they see it in the most simple terms possible: 1 is first. It is literally "1st." Hence, that's where you should always start.

I have had this discussion with numerous different DMs. Every single one of them has made an argument that boiled down to that, plus (in the better cases) some variation of "I appreciate your feedback, but I'm not going to listen to it, and going to do what I'm certain is best."

Even when it demonstrably wasn't.

To bolster your statement somewhat. I prefer to start at level 3. I have had many players express shock over that, and seek to confirm, because... shouldn't we start at level 1 which is the first level instead of "skipping" to higher levels.

I had a game recently started where we put that right on the advertisement that it was starting at level 3... and still had to tell every single player who joined that it was starting at level 3 because they just assumed we would start at the first level.

 

[Lanefan]

I don't think it really can be literally done. Even if you play the game minute by minute, you are skipping time within those minutes. To not skip time, you'd have to play the game second by second, which would take many times longer just to describe what happens in a given second to four players.

An uneventful three week travel through the forest would take 1,814,400 seconds to happen. To describe what happens in a given second to 4 different characters is at least 10 seconds. So now we are at 30 weeks of real time to play 3 weeks of game time. In 3 hour sessions, it would take you 1,680 weekly sessions. So 240 years to roleplay out 3 uneventful weeks.

It's not possible to play out RPGs in real time. You have to have time skips, even if they are small.

Haven't ever got that crazy, but my record for slow in-game time passage is a single (if very eventful) normal non-time-distorted day taking 9 sessions to play through.

Even in the game logs I called that one "The Day That Never Ends".

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Oh, no, I'm definitely not the only person who has had this problem, neither on this forum nor in general.

I'd also note, you're conflating two different things: DMs mandating that everyone start at level 1, and players being happy and excited to start at level 1.

With this glorious age of "DM Empowerment!", it is quite common for DMs to do whatever-the-hell-they-feel-like, players be damned. After all, the Empowered DM doesn't put up with such player entitlement. The Empowered DM doesn't need to do such things. They tell the players to jump, and by golly, the only thing those players better say is "How high?"

Oh, this is again one of those tyrant GM things. If people don't like to play that way, why do these GMs have players? If so many people want to start at higher level, why don't some of these people run games that start at higher level, so all those deprived masses would flock to them?

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Oh, this is again one of those tyrant GM things. If people don't like to play that way, why do these GMs have players? If so many people want to start at higher level, why don't some of these people run games that start at higher level, so all those deprived masses would flock to them?

You assume there's anyone actually doing that. As @Chaosmancer said, many players simply think 1st level is just the place you always start. And many DMs have no interest in changing their minds about 1st level being the place you start, so it creates a self-perpetuating cycle.

People do lots of things not because it makes them happy, but because it's just "what one does." That doesn't mean they hate it either! It just means that you cannot say, "Ah, yes, people do X, therefore people like X."

That kind of thinking leads to all sorts of really, really wrong conclusions.

Women must not want pockets, since they keep buying clothes that don't have pockets! I guess women like not having pockets! (Spoiler alert: Every woman I've ever spoken to about this issue hates the fact that real, functional pockets are so hard to find in women's clothing. Yet for some reason, this hasn't changed, across my entire life. Why? Aren't there companies out there who could make so much money if they would just make women's clothes with actual pockets? And yet....)

 

[Lanefan]

That's great for you. A lot of people--I would argue most people--do not find such a glacially slow pace of levelling particularly fun. I, personally, have found such glacially-slow level pace to be extremely boring, nigh-infinitely frustrating, and directly causative of at least three distinct TPKs or "only one single person survived" situations. All three of which immediately led to the death of the campaign in question.

A year to get to 4th level is slightly fast by our standards. That said, that you-as-player find it boring and frustrating tells me you're in it - at least to some extent - specifically for the levelling and power-ups rather than for the enjoyment of in-the-moment play regardless of character level.

I hold the position that levelling up should be no more than a pleasant side effect of play that would have otherwise happened anyway.

As for slow advancement directly causing (near)-TPKs, the only reason those things should be directly connected is if the DM is running a WotC-era module or AP "stock" (i.e. exactly as written) and failing to realize the module expects on-the-fly advancement at a specificed rate.

 

[Lanefan]

You're trying to solve a problem that does not exists for most people. There are already novice levels, they're levels 1-4,

Well, as it's designed right now there's actually room in 5e for an extra "novice level" or even two to fit in between commoner and what is now 1st level; and I think this is what Ezekiel is referring to. In 4e that same gap had room for four or five levels.

and most people like playing them.

Agreed.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Oooooor, as I said, they see it in the most simple terms possible: 1 is first. It is literally "1st." Hence, that's where you should always start.

I have had this discussion with numerous different DMs. Every single one of them has made an argument that boiled down to that, plus (in the better cases) some variation of "I appreciate your feedback, but I'm not going to listen to it, and going to do what I'm certain is best."

Even when it demonstrably wasn't.

Well, certainly not best from your point of view (and thus not for the entire group). It could certainly be best from their point of view, up to and including everyone else at the table except you. Did the other players weight in on any of these situations?

 

[Micah Sweet]

The whole idea of the 1-20 character-build path in 3e kinda torpedoed this idea, as players were de-facto led to expect their characters would last long enough to fulfill that path.

It hasn't got any better since.

Yeah, the assumption of advancement all the way up (at least until enough people lose interest for the campaign to end), definitely encourages a specific playstyle.

 

[Lanefan]

Another option for those as likes high-level play is to look to come into established campaigns partway through, once the PCs have already got to mid-high level, rather than be around for the low-level start.