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%

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."

So if we assume that majority of people are so blind to their own interests, if we made the default starting characters to be (effectively) higher level and the lower level ones optional, how would this change matters? We would have just created a new default these players would now unthinkingly flock to, regardless of whether they actually liked it or not. It just so happens that this new default is the one you prefer!
 

log in or register to remove this ad

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....)
I must say this struck me as I have complained to my wife about this on several occasions. She has no issue with it, but I do - I have to carry all the things she can't fit in her damn pockets!
 

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?"

There's no requirement to start at level 1 and never has been. If you hate a GM's decision(s) maybe it's time to find a new GM. I like starting at level 0 or even as someone mentioned above level 0.
 

So if we assume that majority of people are so blind to their own interests, if we made the default starting characters to be (effectively) higher level and the lower level ones optional, how would this change matters? We would have just created a new default these players would now unthinkingly flock to, regardless of whether they actually liked it or not. It just so happens that this new default is the one you prefer!

If we made the effective starting power level higher we'd be back to 4E. I don't really see an issue other than the bizarre scenario of every game starting at level one which is something I've never seen. If you follow the advice of the DMG level 1 and 2 should take 2 sessions. It's just to get to know how your character works. I'm okay with taking much longer but it's not the default to do that.
 

I feel like if you are advertising running a 5e game at all you need to specify any deviations from BOG-standard AotC D&D front and center, no matter how small and minor you think they are. Folks IME seem quite skiddish regarding a potential bait and switch.
What is AotC? All I could find was a tax credit but guessing it has nothing to do with taxes.
 


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.
It's always amazing to me how different our experiences are. Of the dozens of DMs I've played under, only a couple were bad. And many of them allow starting at higher levels. Although two of them only shadowed the levels and if you started at 3rd level, you'd still need to get the amount of xp to go from 1st to 4th before making 4th level.

That said, many of them did require 1st level as the starting point.
 

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". :)
That's kinda crazy. However, even with what you did, there had to be time skips, however small.
 


Yet if so many women complain about it, why don't clothes manufacturers change to meet demand? Clearly the women who dislike this must be in the minority, if they keep buying clothes that don't have pockets! Or...the alternative answer...just because it happens doesn't mean people like it.
I doubt it, because the issue is more complex than like or dislike of pockets. There is a very real reason women's clothing rarely has pockets. That reason is that women tend to like thinner materials, because of the look those thin fabrics provide. For a pocket to be usable as a practical matter, it has to be thick and reinforced, which stands very much out of place on an otherwise ethereal garment.

There are thicker women's garments to buy if they want them, but so far it seems like they prefer the thinner fabric over pockets, even is they dislike not having pockets.
 

Remove ads

Top