D&D General If not death, then what?

[Vaalingrade]

One thing that may help with that? Let the players set limits.

I did this with a Sci-Fi game a friend ran. I wanted to play the reluctant hero, a simple engineer trying to get home to his wife, whom he had wed before the company sent him on a multi-year mining tour. I told the GM flat out, I was not interested in any stories that involved his loving wife leaving him for another man because he'd been gone, or anything of the sort. That wasn't the story I was interested in. She ended up terrorized by a gang because his entire homeworld had turned into a mafia world for some reason, but the GM respected my call on who this character was.

A lot of players avoid connections because they not only know the DM will use them as "knives" as one of my former DMs put it, but because they don't trust the nature of the knife. But if you give some of the control back to them, and respect that control, then they may be more receptive. Something like "Hey, I want to tie you guys into the world more deeply and create some potentially interesting drama. Can you guys give me three 'knives' I can use against your characters? I'll let you tell me what is off-limits."

And sure, you may have that player who is like "Here is my sister, I don't anything bad to happen to her ever." But you can still work in some plot points with that. Like, she finds a genie spirit and gets three wishes, and that starts some chaos. Nothing bad is happening to her, but she becomes a focus of a story. But, in my experience, most people are okay with "This is the person I want to save later as a big hero moment" so they are fine with them being put into danger, but they wouldn't be fine with their childhood friend secretly being a devil worshipper and having to fight them, because you thought it was more dramatic than her being kidnapped.

This is why I love HERO, as Disadvantages are configurable versions of this.

For example, you have a rival and you can decide if they're a romantic rival or professional or whatever, whether you're actually trying to kill each other or if they're more or less powerful than you. So you can have a nuisance you kick around like shocker, or a deadly crime boss out to end you like Kingpin.

You also have Dependent NPCs; people your character cares about. You get to dial in how often they're in danger and how bad the danger is based on how many points you get for them. And then if you don't want them to be in any danger or to be helpful, they can be Contact instead and the ST isn't supposed to screw with that explicitly by the rules.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Your story is the reason backstory are not for.my table. It would not have been Your nemesis. It would have been the nemesis of the group. The whole group would have reasons to be there. Missing out on that fight would still be a sad thing, but at least, the main protagonists would still be there.

Your group finished your story for you. That sucks big. But creating full back story instead of having the story evolve from play often bring this kind of events into play.

I have never even been able to create a character without a backstory. To me there is literally nothing more boring.

I actually remember... two characters like this, that I had to DM for. One was a human fighter named Brick. He was a human fighter. The player occassionally rolled dice to see what Brick's emotional reaction was to things. The only thing I remember from him was that he rolled dice to charge a dragon once, that turned out to be an illusion. That game ended up with them defeating Orcus, destroying a tome of dark knowledge, the bard sacrificing his fey-child and becoming a fey lord, and the Cleric and Paladin niece/Uncle pair returning to their family abode to continue their vigilance against the undead. I don't even remember if Brick was still playing at that point, he was so utterly uninteresting to everyone.

The second character was a ranger. I remember he was a ranger because of having to rework the character sheet. They encountered an Aboleth who offered everyone their deepest desires. This ranger, whose name I cannot even recall, had nothing. Literally, the only thing I could think of about his character was that he always was looking at the job board to make extra money. So the Aboleth offered him a chest of platinum. He said yes, and retired the character and made a... I think the monk was before the ranger? I literally have no idea what he played next.


I can't play these sort of characters. I can barely run games for them. The idea of making "Hi, I am dwarf fighter" just makes me shudder. There is no role in that, there is just a suit of mechanics. I need to create some sort of backstory. That sorcerer I mentioned who died, his nemesis was his former slave holder, it was a Darksun game and playing an escaped slave was a fun idea. But I can't be "an escaped slave" if I don't know anything about my backstory. I can't be anything.

 

[jgsugden]

I run three types of games: One shots, adventures and campaigns. I address death differently in each.

In a one shot, if you die before the last event of the one shot, I have a backup available and drop you right back into the action in the backup. It is usually something simple to run, like an NPC monster with three or four abilities, but it keeps you in the game. One shots should have a story, but in the end, the short story is not worth forcing a player to watch from the sidelines for more than a few minutes.

In an adventure (which spans between 3 and 10 sessions and then will end the run of those characters in my games), I tend to give the PCs 'last minute save opportunities' to keep a PC alive. An adventure tends to be more of a railroad, and I tend to weave the PCs into the railroad more tightly, so it is better for the game if the PCs survive. Death isn't off the table.... but there are a lot of safety bumpers.

When I run a campaign - which is intended to run from level 1 to at least 17 - Death is always on the table. There are threats around the PCs that are too tough for them. There are situations where they can anger people with a lot of power. They live in a dangerous world.

In campaigns, once I introduce something into the world, I don't cheat it back. I don't revise it to make it weaker, or have it fail to act as I'd intended just because it would be rough on the PCs. As a player and a DM, I have found the best experiences occur in a world where it feels like things are being discovered as the PCs encounter them - not created on the spot to fit a certain need. I make sure the PCs have the capability to discover the information that will allow them to avoid great danger, but there is something really fun in discovering a threat that is too big for you and then growing into being the party that can handle it.

However, this comes with the reality that PCs die.

At low levels, that is usually a permanent death and a replacement PC situation, and my belief that the PCs need to feel like this is a world they're discovering, not one being crafted in the moment, means we have to wait for a place where it makes sense for a new PC to join the party. If that is going to be a while, I'll usually turn the player into a 'co-DM' for battles (and some social encounters), allowing them to run key monsters or NPCs.

When a PC dies and 'their story ends', it doesn't end. I have background story elements from the background of PCs, and I play those out without the PC being present. This gives the fallen PC a legacy, even if the PC is not part of the game directly anymore. Some of the best moments I've had in a DM have been when the players realize that things are going crazy in their world because of something their dead ally from 11 levels ago was wrapped up in...

Still, about 1/3 of the PCs in a campaign die before 5th level. Sometimes it is that random critical hit at level one, sometimes it is getting in over their head and not retreating fast enough. Sometimes it is just bad luck. It just happens.

Once they hit 5th level, PC permanent deaths becomes more rare. It can still happen (and does about once more in a campaign on average), and I approach it the same way when it does. PCs have to wait for an opportunity to introduce a new PC - but here, it is also because there is a far greater chance the PC will be able to come back. Even at 5th level, it is pretty reasonable for the PCs to recover the body, find someone that can raise the dead, and then bring the PC back.

As a side note: in my game, the mechanics of death saves for PCs are understood by some foes (I have a status called Godtouched - all PCs have this status - and it gives creatures the ability to advance rapidly in class abilities and get the benefit of death saves). To this end, some villains will focus on the true killing blow to make sure an enemy stays down. In the same way that an Immortal Highlander makes sure they cut off a foe's head, a Godtouched in my setting will devliver those 2 or three attacks to a downed foe - and potentially will take the body to prevent raising of the dead. However, Once you get to 9th level, assuming you can recover the body at some point, permanent death is not really likely at all.

 

[Chaosmancer]

I never kill PC. PCs kill themselves. By being reckless, planning poorly, making mistakes or simple bad assumption and even through bad luck. Sometimes, the big bad evil chump wins. That is life. It might suck, but without that risk, the game gets boring. The story emerges from the choices of the players and not from mine. I do not choose to kill a PC. Fate is sometimes fickle. Fairness for a DM is applying the rules equally to the PC and their foes. It is not fudging and favouring PCs all the time.

You are just the most recent person to say this, but... man I kind of hate this attitude.

This is sort of the problem I have with @DND_Reborn drilling down into @Sabathius42 's story as well. It has to be the player's fault somehow. I know Helldritch that you added bad luck to the bottom of the list, but you still started with "they were reckless" or "they had a poor plan". There is this feeling in these responses, in DnD_Reborn's drilling down in the Sabathius's claim about how they actually did die due to bad luck, that death must be the player's fault, and that if they had just planned better, prepared better, been better and more skilled at the game, then they wouldn't have died.

But isn't that... kind of toxic? Like, does anyone watch the NFL or some other pro-sports and go "Well, Green Bay Packers, if you were better at Football you wouldn't have lost that game." And DnD isn't a professional sport. We are so far down the line of skill-based play that it isn't even funny. I've seen so many incredibly well-thought out plans that were trashed the moment the d20 hit the table. What is the point of this attitude of "Well, if they had just done X they wouldn't have died"? Like, honestly, what do you accomplish with this, except basically throwing your hands up and saying "You can't blame me for this!"

And again, I'm not trying to point specific fingers, beyond that you two are the ones springing to mind this instant, but I've seen this in a lot of places anytime PC death comes up, and it is this constant refrain. And it baffles me. When I play? As a player who has gone down more than once? I'm not making plans I think will end in failure. I'm not making decisions I suspect are bad. Heck, most of the time, I'm not even making plans I think are risky. But I'm not omniscient. And I don't see PC death as some sort of blame game where we have to figure out whose fault it is.

 

[tetrasodium]

Man, I hate multiquote sooo much. I can barely do a single quote because I'm using ENworld via a phone and Chrome browser.

1. The 4th character was not on the side of the map we were. They were a ranger attacking from a different board edge. The hiding/splitting up goal was to confuse the defenders at exactly what and how many things were attacking.

2. The wizard did not counterspell that spell as they had ducked behind a building for cover from the BBEG.

3. I forget the name of the spell. It's an 8th level wizard blast that has a 60' radius 12d6 damage and blind on a failed save. Sunburst or something? If you imagine a sort of city grid of small buildings I was behind a building in the NW quadrant, the wizard behind a building two streets to the south (he could see me from his ducked behind position), and the barbarian one more street south from the wizard but a bit forward so he could not see either of us. With the huge radius the spell was cast in the air and blasted that whole area from above.

4. Barbarian wasn't raging yet as he was shooting and moving with a bow waiting for the zombie to drop before rushing in. The overall gameplan was Heat Metal giant zombie too stupid to remove armor until it's dead while sniping and hiding from range, then when zombie drops charge in with party to finish off BBEG and two medium sized guards.

5. I'm not trying to optimize to win. I made a fun character that was a kobold named Yip-Yip who could summon a friend who happened to be a fire elemental named Yip who looked like a fiery version of Yip-Yip. This is a B-Team character and I'm not all that I terested in trying to keep track of all the multiple forms of shape change. I chose this subclass because it's easier to run a 2nd character than keep changing my stats all the time. Plus a kobold pyro is enjoyably chaotic.

6. Yip was flying above a building shooting his mini fireballs at the zombie while I was remaining hidden. My character was never known to the bad guys remaining hidden and silent the entire battle. This would allow us to add more "backup" arriving when I emerged to make out unknown numbers seem even larger. When I was KOed by the blast Yip was unsummoned/destroyed.

7. I'm a kobold. I did not have a high CON score to bulk up my HP. I did have a DEX of 20 which was of no use in this situation.

8. As mentioned before, we were sticking and moving. Calling out would let the bad guys know your exact location which would have brought the zombie giant swarming in on you while you were standing there blind and low on HP. The zombie, like a lot of giants, was fairly innocuous unless you actually were foolish enough to fight it toe to toe. It had no ranged attacks but hit for 30ish damage with it's giant sized great sword.

9. Had the characters known I was dying the only one that would have been able to get to me and pop a potion before I died would have been the barbarian. The wizard was blinded for 3 rounds and hiding from further damage as he downed some potions. The ranger was on the other side of the map and trying to interrupt the BBEG from casting another devastating spell, the barbarian wasted one turn blinded still but made his save at the end. The round after he decided his best option was to rage and charge the zombie hoping that his HP remainder would be enough to finish it off. Had he instead come over to heal me the following round would have seen me with 10HP and a non raging barbarian versus the zombie giant. I probably would have died from massive damage at that point but I supposed I could have run and hid again to heal up some. I think that would have just left the barbarian out to dry.

I think that's all the points...

The ore I've read about this incident the more it seems like the party dated the gm to kill someone. You have at least one character doing what is generally a very suboptimal type of combat for the class (bow using barbarian trying to avoid being in a fight where they could rage). The group is split far beyond what could be considered a little reckless (seems like you weren't the only one off on your own). You even appear to have the suicidally split party taking on multiple encounters at once.

 

[Medic]

Like, does anyone watch the NFL or some other pro-sports and go "Well, Green Bay Packers, if you were better at Football you wouldn't have lost that game."

It would probably be the most polite thing I've ever heard about a losing sports team.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Which is why I consider this way of playing superior. We are not attempting to create the DM's novel or the background story of a player or some players. We are litteraly seeing a story evolve from our game. Sometimes, the story ends well. Sometimes, it ends badly. We truly do not know. This is what makes it so fun.

I do not understand why "random, permanent, irrevocable death doesn't happen" contradicts this. There are plenty of things the players can be certain, or at least reasonably certain, will not happen in a game. The DM, for example, won't just show up one day and say, "Rocks fall, everyone dies. Ouch! Guess that campaign's over. Anyone up for some Mouse Guard?"

My players and I didn't know whether they could solve the case of who murdered Farim el-Busiyyah, Secretary of Agriculture and Trade in the court of Mount Matahat. We didn't know if they could stop the Shadow Druid plot to infect the whole city with fungal spores that would turn people into mushroom zombies. We didn't know if they could save that poor mercenary who had been exposed to the Song of Thorns. We didn't know if they could truly defeat the Song of Thorns itself, when they geared up to try. We didn't know if the Battlemaster could find the mythical lost chapter of Struggle and Calm, General al-Hamdan's treatise on strategy and philosophy, even when they had figured out where she died. We didn't know if the party could save the Druid from his somewhat-reckless, but useful, contract signed with a devil the party has met, or if it would entrap him.

We still don't know what happened to the antiquities dealer (though we've learned it's definitely something Extremely Weird and Timey-Wimey), whom the Battlemaster wanted to question about what she could tell him about one of his people's lost artifacts. We don't know if the Bard can reclaim the Raven-Shadows from the evil that has manipulated them, seeing them through their holy civil war fought in the city's shadows. We don't know if the party can even locate, to say nothing of defeat, the black dragon trying to take over the city.

So much of the story isn't nailed down for anyone, not even me. None of that is invalidated by me saying, "I won't take your character away forever, unless you're okay with that." Not one piece.

(Also, @Charlaquin, I know you haven't posted in this thread, but the above quote is relevant to our conversation in the other thread. This is the "this way is just axiomatically superior" argument I see...pretty much always in conversations like this. Much more politely than it's usually presented, actually.)

Overcoming this hurdle was my first step to unlocking the secrets of prosperity.

I honestly cannot tell if you are being serious or sarcastic, but I really hope it's the latter. Otherwise that's very depressing.

 

[Charlaquin]

(Also, @Charlaquin, I know you haven't posted in this thread, but the above quote is relevant to our conversation in the other thread. This is the "this way is just axiomatically superior" argument I see...pretty much always in conversations like this. Much more politely than it's usually presented, actually.)

I don’t really see anything particularly hostile about @Helldritch‘s comment there. Would it have been more polite to have said “I prefer this way of playing” rather than “I consider this way of playing superior”? Sure, but I’m not going to fault someone for a bit of clumsy phrasing, especially because… why else would you have a preference for playing in a certain way, except that you find it to be better than other ways of playing? It’s good to acknowledge that what’s best for you and your own goals isn’t necessarily best for everyone else, but I think we as RPGers sometimes get too fussy about the particular phrasing people use when expressing their preferences. I prefer to extend the benefit of the doubt when it’s reasonable to do so. I suppose we could just ask @Helldritch if they meant to imply that this way of playing is always better for everyone, or if they just meant it’s better for themselves and their group of players.

 

[Lanefan]

You are just the most recent person to say this, but... man I kind of hate this attitude.

This is sort of the problem I have with @DND_Reborn drilling down into @Sabathius42 's story as well. It has to be the player's fault somehow. I know Helldritch that you added bad luck to the bottom of the list, but you still started with "they were reckless" or "they had a poor plan". There is this feeling in these responses, in DnD_Reborn's drilling down in the Sabathius's claim about how they actually did die due to bad luck, that death must be the player's fault, and that if they had just planned better, prepared better, been better and more skilled at the game, then they wouldn't have died.

But isn't that... kind of toxic? Like, does anyone watch the NFL or some other pro-sports and go "Well, Green Bay Packers, if you were better at Football you wouldn't have lost that game."

I say that about the Vancouver Canucks and hockey at least 40 times a season. It's a simple truth, no toxicity involved.

And again, I'm not trying to point specific fingers, beyond that you two are the ones springing to mind this instant, but I've seen this in a lot of places anytime PC death comes up, and it is this constant refrain. And it baffles me. When I play? As a player who has gone down more than once? I'm not making plans I think will end in failure. I'm not making decisions I suspect are bad. Heck, most of the time, I'm not even making plans I think are risky. But I'm not omniscient. And I don't see PC death as some sort of blame game where we have to figure out whose fault it is.

Sometimes it's bad planning meeting average luck, sometimes it's great planning meeting bad luck, sometimes it's bad luck all on its own, and sometimes (guilty as charged!) it's sheer player-side stupidity.

And yes, there's always blame to be assigned; even if just to the dice.

 

[Chaosmancer]

I say that about the Vancouver Canucks and hockey at least 40 times a season. It's a simple truth, no toxicity involved.

So would you claim to know how to play the game of hockey better than professionals? Would you somehow put forth that the other team's wins are solely a factor of the Vancouver team not playing the game at a professional level?

Whichever arguments you are about to make, now remember than hockey is a game of pure skill, and a DnD game always involves luck and random chance. So, if it is possible for good players to be simply outperformed by better players, what happens when one of the players is literally random chance that can do anything at any time?

Sometimes it's bad planning meeting average luck, sometimes it's great planning meeting bad luck, sometimes it's bad luck all on its own, and sometimes (guilty as charged!) it's sheer player-side stupidity.

And yes, there's always blame to be assigned; even if just to the dice.

I'm not trying to say that it is NEVER the player's fault. Sometimes, people do the dumb.

But there is far too much random chance in the game for it to not play a factor, and many of the people I am responding to state, definitively, that it is not random chance, but is completely the fault of the player, because of poor play. Not because your well-thought out plan didn't have all the information (Honestly the sheer number of people that seem to expect the player to have the precise DPR calculations of all monsters memorized), not because your well-thought out and well-informed plan failed do to poor luck, but that it was your fault, because you made the bad decisions that led to that plan possibly failing.

We actually had someone in one of these threads say that failing a roll was the player's fault, because they should have known that failing a roll was possible. And this was involving a trap, that the player, in theory, would not know the exact stats of. It really seems like the idea is to stretch and find a way to make it about skill, when DnD is quite frankly, not a game of skill.