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

[EzekielRaiden]

What sort of stupid out of the blue crap? Do you mean old school untelegraphed instakill traps and stuff like that? Because I'm not a fan of that sort of a thing either.

Sure, that's an example. Another, which I've referenced many a time before, is dying to "random orc #7" getting an (un)lucky crit at exactly the wrong time when the party can't do a blessed thing about it. E.g. no access to revivify (level <5, healer is a Bard or Druid that doesn't learn it), or the body isn't available so no resurrection spell short of true resurrection or the like, or the resources are non-existent and cannot be acquired by the party within a reasonable period of time (e.g. they're dead broke in the middle of nowhere, or in a place where diamonds and/or diamond dust is simply not available for purchase).

If the PC can in fact be revived by the party and they're just reluctant to spend the resources? That's not irrevocable. The players are making a decision not to revoke it. If the PCs have an ally they can reach in a reasonable amount of time (as stated, no more than two full sessions), then that's perfectly acceptable, and one of the reasons why I try to make sure PCs do have allies they could call upon. If one or more of the PCs were clearly warned that they were doing something extraordinarily unwise and that death could really happen if they continue on their course, and they continue on it anyway, that's not random, that's a well-earned death. If the BBEG takes the body and decides it's worth their while to restore the PC to life for some reason, that's also acceptable and creates various opportunities that I think are pretty cool.

It really, really does have to be something random, and also permanent, and also something the players genuinely can't fix within a reasonable period of time. I have my standard (2 full sessions of character being dead), others will likely have their own. Making it "a hundred sessions" or the like is, I think, pretty blatantly unreasonable regardless, but making it say five full sessions? Maybe even ten? Probably fine, even if I would not like such a delay regardless of which side of the screen I'm on.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

To be equally pendantic, plenty of people have died sitting at home.

Any rollercoaster deaths are either because 1) The Rollercoaster was damaged, poorly designed, or otherwise not working as intended (just like a game designed not to kill people out of nowhere leading to a death) 2) They had an extreme medical condition they were unaware of and should not have been on the ride in the first place.

And honestly, this whole thing seems to come down to an unsubstantiated claim you keep making (Well, two since no one has actually said that they want to completely remove and prevent all death under all circumstances). That you would be able to tell. You keep jumping to that conclusion, that the moment you "figured it out" everything would come crashing down. But... how would that happen?

See, there is this odd little thing that keeps happening in these discussions. To "prove" that a game without death cannot work, people insist on PCs taking suicidal actions, basically daring the DM to kill them (which, again, all of us advocating on the other side have said we would not find that behavior acceptable). But, if that's what it takes to "prove" the game isn't going to kill your character... when do you decide to do those suicidally dumb things? In Lanefan's game, for an example, I doubt I would enter a room without a half page checklist of things to do or confirm just to avoid instant death traps. I'd never end up running towards a dragon in nothing but my night shirt, to "prove" he wouldn't kill the character. So you start from the premise that you would know, then add in that you would intentionally sabotage the game to "prove it" which if you were wrong (or we just didn't feel like dealing with) ...would end with your character dead and the theory unproven.

And as I've said repeatedly, if characters did do things like that? Tough luck, buddy. Maybe don't be an @$$ next time.

 

[Lanefan]

So...we've now determined that if a D&D character falls out of a roller coaster it deserves to die?

Well done, chaps. Carry on...

 

[Micah Sweet]

To be equally pendantic, plenty of people have died sitting at home.

Any rollercoaster deaths are either because 1) The Rollercoaster was damaged, poorly designed, or otherwise not working as intended (just like a game designed not to kill people out of nowhere leading to a death) 2) They had an extreme medical condition they were unaware of and should not have been on the ride in the first place.

And honestly, this whole thing seems to come down to an unsubstantiated claim you keep making (Well, two since no one has actually said that they want to completely remove and prevent all death under all circumstances). That you would be able to tell. You keep jumping to that conclusion, that the moment you "figured it out" everything would come crashing down. But... how would that happen?

See, there is this odd little thing that keeps happening in these discussions. To "prove" that a game without death cannot work, people insist on PCs taking suicidal actions, basically daring the DM to kill them (which, again, all of us advocating on the other side have said we would not find that behavior acceptable). But, if that's what it takes to "prove" the game isn't going to kill your character... when do you decide to do those suicidally dumb things? In Lanefan's game, for an example, I doubt I would enter a room without a half page checklist of things to do or confirm just to avoid instant death traps. I'd never end up running towards a dragon in nothing but my night shirt, to "prove" he wouldn't kill the character. So you start from the premise that you would know, then add in that you would intentionally sabotage the game to "prove it" which if you were wrong (or we just didn't feel like dealing with) ...would end with your character dead and the theory unproven.

Are you saying you would run a game like this without telling the players that death has special rules in your campaign?

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Are you saying you would run a game like this without telling the players that death has special rules in your campaign?

Nothing in what they posted reads that way to me. What made you think that?

 

[Micah Sweet]

Nothing in what they posted reads that way to me. What made you think that?

@Chaosmancer spent a good deal of his post asking how a player would know they couldn't die without consent (at least that's how I read it). Seems like a player who doesn't know that hasn't been properly informed before the campaign began.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

@Chaosmancer spent a good deal of his post asking how a player would know they couldn't die without consent (at least that's how I read it). Seems like a player who doesn't know that hasn't been properly informed before the campaign began.

How could they intentionally try to prove that it's impossible to die if they don't know that, under certain circumstances, character deaths will be reversed, whether on their own (=impermanent) or as a result of PC actions (=revocable)? If they already know that piece of information, why would they not also know that intentional disruptive behavior is not tolerated?

I don't see how it's possible for them to intentionally do these things unless they already know that the DM finds RPI-type deaths undesirable in their campaigns. And, it's worth noting, Lanefan's specific examples were always in response to me (or others, but usually me) explicitly saying that I include this information as part of my campaign pitch, my pre-game conversations with the players, and/or my Session 0 discussions. Discussions that would also include the fact that I don't like being used and I don't like people being intentionally crappy and exploiting my efforts to help them have a good time, which includes intentionally doing stupid $#!+ just to see what they can get away with.

And if none of this has been discussed in advance, doesn't this still put the vast, vast majority of misbehavior on the player? "I suspect this DM might be providing resurrection or get-out-of-death situations, so without asking, I'm going to actively try to trigger this effect as often as possible in order to prove the DM's meddling" is pretty clearly and intentionally disruptive, jerkish behavior undertaken solely on the suspicion that the DM might be doing something the player doesn't like, but which cannot ever demonstrate a negative (a lack of the DM doing things the player doesn't like).

Surely the correct thing to do when you suspect the DM is doing something you don't like is to have a conversation with them outside of play, or if you're worried they might retaliate or otherwise behave even worse due to such a conversation, have a pre-game or post-game conversation with other players as witnesses so people can corroborate what actually happened. Surely actively trying to disrupt the game is never an acceptable response, yes?

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Sure, that's an example. Another, which I've referenced many a time before, is dying to "random orc #7" getting an (un)lucky crit at exactly the wrong time when the party can't do a blessed thing about it. E.g. no access to revivify (level <5, healer is a Bard or Druid that doesn't learn it), or the body isn't available so no resurrection spell short of true resurrection or the like, or the resources are non-existent and cannot be acquired by the party within a reasonable period of time (e.g. they're dead broke in the middle of nowhere, or in a place where diamonds and/or diamond dust is simply not available for purchase).

If the PC can in fact be revived by the party and they're just reluctant to spend the resources? That's not irrevocable. The players are making a decision not to revoke it. If the PCs have an ally they can reach in a reasonable amount of time (as stated, no more than two full sessions), then that's perfectly acceptable, and one of the reasons why I try to make sure PCs do have allies they could call upon. If one or more of the PCs were clearly warned that they were doing something extraordinarily unwise and that death could really happen if they continue on their course, and they continue on it anyway, that's not random, that's a well-earned death. If the BBEG takes the body and decides it's worth their while to restore the PC to life for some reason, that's also acceptable and creates various opportunities that I think are pretty cool.

It really, really does have to be something random, and also permanent, and also something the players genuinely can't fix within a reasonable period of time. I have my standard (2 full sessions of character being dead), others will likely have their own. Making it "a hundred sessions" or the like is, I think, pretty blatantly unreasonable regardless, but making it say five full sessions? Maybe even ten? Probably fine, even if I would not like such a delay regardless of which side of the screen I'm on.

Yes, D&D combat uses randomness. So does that to you mean permanent death via combat is unacceptable?

As some (non-exhaustive) examples of what is NOT an RPI death:

• Since this comes up so, so often: Player intentionally being stupidly reckless and foolhardy and taking a deadly risk
• PC going into deadly danger, player knowing it is deadly danger, and expressly accepting that consequence

Because to me these would imply otherwise. If the PCs decide to ambush a dragon that has been harassing a city, if they decided to travel trough the Caves of Madness that is famous for its deadly undead, then they're choosing the danger.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

I made the comment in my last game that “I’m not going to let a character die whist the player is absent“. They were late and I left them hanging from a ledge until the player arrived. This clearly implies they might die if the player isn’t absent! I guess on average about one character dies per campaign, around half that permanently. But I don’t have any target value or quota of dead PCs to fill.

 

[Oofta]

So...we've now determined that if a D&D character falls out of a roller coaster it deserves to die?

Well done, chaps. Carry on...

People have fallen tens of thousands of feet and survived so falling out of a Rollercoaster should be a piece of cake!