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

[Chaosmancer]

Wait... are you trying to correlate length of campaign with this horrible ending to your character(s)?

No. It was just a fact to add to the pile.

It's up to the DM to introduce a way for you, as a player, to get involved. Having you sit out and watch b/c your character died is a terrible resolution for the DM to uphold. Surely you could be offered to roll up a new character or be given control of an NPC in the meantime while the storyline continues towards finding your PC's corpse.

Perhaps I could. But would it be satisfying to see Moriarty defeated by... the butler who had never appeared before? She was literally using my corpse to do a ritual, the very next scene was fighting her, the Big Bad of my character's backstory. Even if I was offered the chance to take some rando into the fight... why would I?

Ugh... really sorry to hear about these experiences of yours. That's some serious gameplay disconnect that seems to be blatantly ignoring the ultimate goal of the game: for everyone to have fun while creating exciting, memorable stories. I know it's probably a more nuanced situation but, based on what you have written, I would not continue to play in such a group.

It was one of the longer games I had ever played in (two years) and I believe the first actual campaign I had been in that lasted more than two sessions. Shrug

 

[Chaosmancer]

New players also need to learn that failure means failure and is thus best avoided where possible. If the tone is set early on that the game is hard on its characters, then it doesn't come as so much of a shock later when the game (in theory) does get harder...except given the coming-online of guaranteed-to-work revival spells and other curative abilities it in fact gets easier as you go along, meaning your idea here just makes it easy all the way through.

Also, setting an early tone that you're ready willing and able to follow through on the threats you-as-DM put in front of the characters means later threats will be taken more seriously even if you're less inclined to follow them through.

No, you do not need to teach your players that failure means failure. They know that. It is kind of obvious. Failure meaning you can still continue is much more rare, and something a lot harder to learn. And, kind of funny you go from "you need to set the tone early on that the game is hard on characters" to realizing... the game doesn't actually work that way, and rarely has. Spells and magic items have CONSTANTLY meant that challenges get easier and easier to heal and walk away from the longer the game goes.

And finally, you-as-DM should never be threatening the characters. That is entirely out of line. "Do this or your character will die" is not a healthy mindset to the game, and that is exactly what it would mean to threaten a character. Even in a situation where a character is a hostage is a VERY dicey situation to be in as a DM, because then you have a situation where one character may be sacrificed to protect the rest, and when you actually care about your character and you don't want them sacrificed? That doesn't lead to people having fun with the game.

 

[Chaosmancer]

I don't know that the objection to "forever" campaigns is system specific. You could argue that 5e's player centered design and the power of the PCs natively in the system actually lends itself to more naturally occurring campaigns of great length.

I think this is actually more of a change in modern society, and can be traced back to social media. I simply think your average player has a shorter attention span and as such "burns out" or loses interests long before reaching those lengths. After all, many are exposed to perpetual dopamine highs through infinite 30 second entertainment on their phone. This isn't to comment on Chaosmancer's thought, it's just a separate theory of mine on the topic.

I think similar societal changes have influenced the way people handle player death and set backs as opposed to decades past, like the 80s and 90s. But that's probably a different discussion.

I would say you are completely wrong. People do not have shorter attention spans.

Instead, look to DC, Marvel, Simpsons, pick your multi-decade media of choice. The longer it goes on, the more of its luster it seems to lose. A story without end has a problem.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Move to Victoria and then stay here. You'll get it.

When I started my current campaign in 2008 I had vague plans for about 5 years worth of material - as in, here's a sketched-out series of adventures I can run; and at average X-sessions per adventure and Y-sessions per year that's about 5 years worth - knowing (and-or hoping!) that either I or the players would, during that time, come up with further ideas and material.

The adventure I'm running right now, 16+ years later, was in that original sketched-out series. They're only just now getting to it, as the "capstone" adventure to one of several story-lines that have run through the entire campaign. And even though it's the capstone, it's not necessarily an end: there might still be subsequent adventures and story arise out of it.

The game I'm running right now had a first mission. I started with five players.

I am done to one player, and the mission had to be abandoned for a completely different plot, due to losing essentially the entire party, three of whom we lost before the first encounter (One quit, one vanished, one was in a car accident). Play-by-post games are slow, we started in march. It will be a year here soon, and hopefully the player is still enjoying.

If I entered a game with 5 years worth of material? I'd be wasting my time.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I would say you are completely wrong. People do not have shorter attention spans.

Instead, look to DC, Marvel, Simpsons, pick your multi-decade media of choice. The longer it goes on, the more of its luster it seems to lose. A story without end has a problem.

Generally I'd still prefer to keep things going as long as I can. And it doesn't always apply, certainly not in any objective way. When I got into Marvel Comics, they were nearly 30 years past the dawn of the Silver Age and I loved it. There was great stuff for decades past that as far as I'm concerned. A lot of Star Trek's recent stuff, like Lower Decks and Strange New Worlds, is really great. You're not going to convince me that reboots and remixes are better than keeping the original story/setting going and continuing to explore it, not in any way that matters beyond your own opinion.

 

[Chaosmancer]

If your options boil down to:

A - all of you die trying to save the child, meaning the child then dies too; or
B - the child dies but you do not, and you later negate the child's death via reviving it while also avenging its killers

...which seems the better choice?

But of course, we don't know that those are what the options boil down to, do we? We don't know whether or not we will die in the fight.

So, if your options boil down to

a) Fight, and maybe die, to protect a child
b) Run away and ensure your survival, but the child dies, but that's okay because you are rich enough to fix it later probably

... which seems like the choice that lets you look at yourself in the mirror? Which seems to be the choice taken by someone who believes in morals?

At 4th level you - depending on the campaign - could easily have the resources required to pay an NPC to cast a high-end revival spell that doesn't require the presence of the corpse.

The city was isolated and no one was a 17th level cleric. Entire plot point to force us into the adventure.

I just gotta ask: do you tend to play uptight Paladinic types? If yes, then IMO and IME being hung out to dry sooner or later is pretty much par for the course, as the rest of the party simply may not want a character like that around.

And I think this, more than your using a different edition of the game, is the biggest disconnect between you and modern gamers.

I don't always play someone with paladin level morals, but I play heroes. Because why in the world would I want to play a callous money-grubber?

The bolded is how I've always seen it. Sometimes 1 death really is better than 4 or 5 or 6 deaths, and you just gotta cut your losses and bail out.

This is in contrast to your experiences noted here, where it seems in both cases you were intentionally hung out to dry by your party. It sucks at the time, but it's also indicative of a party setting its own in-character tone of the type of people it'll willingly accept in its ranks and - believe it or not - can even be a sign that the party is starting to unify into a more cohesive whole rather than a bunch of squabbling cats.

Cohesive? A bunch of cutthroats who will leave you to die at the drop of a hat isn't cohesive. When everyone is just out for themselves with no regard to other members of the team, it is just a ticking time bomb.

The modern game has many problems. This is but one.

No. This isn't a problem with the modern game.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Generally I'd still prefer to keep things going as long as I can. And it doesn't always apply, certainly not in any objective way. When I got into Marvel Comics, they were nearly 30 years past the dawn of the Silver Age and I loved it. There was great stuff for decades past that as far as I'm concerned. A lot of Star Trek's recent stuff, like Lower Decks and Strange New Worlds, is really great. You're not going to convince me that reboots and remixes are better than keeping the original story/setting going and continuing to explore it, not in any way that matters beyond your own opinion.

Of course you want to keep the story going, it is a good story.

But inevitably, it kills the story to keep pushing it on towards forever.

And I'll note, that you say reboots and remixes aren't better.... but then you complement Lower Decks and Strange New Worlds. Which are exactly that! Star Trek, despite having some trouble with writers on occasion, has the correct formula. The story of Deep Space Nine ended. The story of the original tale with Captain Kirk ended, and it was only DECADES later that they rebooted it with a series of movies that had nothing to do with the original story. Khan has appeared, what, four times total? They keep giving us different captains, different crewsm different threats, and whether or not they do it well, they are doing the correct thing.

And I will admit, some people can do incredible stories over extended periods of time... but almost every single time it is with a very clear end goal in sight. Telling a different story in the same setting? AMAZING! I wish more stories did that. Telling the same story, over and over again, for multiple decades, rebooting and rebooting and rebooting... less good. You need to change things up.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I don't always play someone with paladin level morals, but I play heroes. Because why in the world would I want to play a callous money-grubber?

What exactly is objectively better about playing a hero? The way you said that implied that anyone would agree with your stance that playing a hero is the superior option.

 

[GobHag]

Because Chaosmancer doesn't want to and has negative views on being a selfish prick duh.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Of course you want to keep the story going, it is a good story.

But inevitably, it kills the story to keep pushing it on towards forever.

And I'll note, that you say reboots and remixes aren't better.... but then you complement Lower Decks and Strange New Worlds. Which are exactly that! Star Trek, despite having some trouble with writers on occasion, has the correct formula. The story of Deep Space Nine ended. The story of the original tale with Captain Kirk ended, and it was only DECADES later that they rebooted it with a series of movies that had nothing to do with the original story. Khan has appeared, what, four times total? They keep giving us different captains, different crewsm different threats, and whether or not they do it well, they are doing the correct thing.

And I will admit, some people can do incredible stories over extended periods of time... but almost every single time it is with a very clear end goal in sight. Telling a different story in the same setting? AMAZING! I wish more stories did that. Telling the same story, over and over again, for multiple decades, rebooting and rebooting and rebooting... less good. You need to change things up.

None of those are reboots. All take place in different times and in different places in the same universe, the same story, with frequent crossovers taking place.

Just like Marvel.