D&D General If not death, then what?

[James Gasik]

And at the same time highly implausible.

Fine for a movie, but not what I really want from a character in a D&D setting. That said, D&D characters come equipped with these things called hit points, which tend to serve largely the same function to a certain - but limited - degree.

This raises a valid point: in a less-violent type of game - e.g. one largely based around courtly intrigue where any actual fighting is done by NPC armies and mercenaries - then character death need not be much if any of a factor; as you're not out to kill your courtly foes, nor are they out to kill you.

But if you're out slaying monsters, it's only fair the monsters have a chance to kill in return.

In broader terms, the PCs can expect to get back what they give out.

A rotating cast can and does still has a narrative, though: that of the party as a whole rather than of any one individual character. That's the difference: characters can come and go all the time but as long as the party continues, so does the narrative around it. Same as a sports franchise - nobody who plays for the New York Yankees today played for them in 1982, but it's still the same team and people who aren't me still cheer for it.

So more like The Black Company, then. Major characters come and go, and eventually, everyone's ticket comes up.

 

[DND_Reborn]

Not that I can get most of these guys to DM, lol. They think it's too hard.

Too bad, I thought it would have worked well.

 

[James Gasik]

Too bad, I thought it would have worked well.

Yeah it would. Maybe I need a new group of players, lol.

 

[GMMichael]

If not death, then what?

Undeath?

But if a character dies, either the group needs to pool for a ressurection or the player needs to roll up a new PC.

Pool for resurrection? What, is the church selling indulgences? Is eternal life for only the rich?

On the other hand, a few years back I was in a game where my elvin enchanter got taken out by a ghoul/ghast pack (a TPK, to boot, I lasted the longest). I quit that game, and did not come back to it, as I had felt the situation the group had been put into in the first place had been unwinnable from the start.

Congrats on holding out. Sometimes, the DM is too heavy-handed. Other times, something wicked this way comes, and the PCs are a little short on wisdom (to run).

 

[Uni-the-Unicorn!]

See, I don't expect players to respect challenges if they know they're extremely unlikely to die regardless; that wouldn't make sense to me or my players. That would be being a nonsensical player at my table

I expect the players I play with to be able to play in character. Meaning the player may know there’s not a reasonable chance of death, but the character doesn’t know that. Therefore it is not nonsensical to the character.

Edit: that came off harsher than I intended. If you and your players like that style, by all means have fun. It just doesn't work for me.

 

[JiffyPopTart]

Sure, but the world still allows the possibility of death, and the person in question can't just say, "no thank you" when it happens. That's what I'm talking about. Death being outside player control is part of the world existing independent of the PCs.

A character isnt dead until the GM says they are dead. In your statent you imply that "the world" makes death happen, but "the world" is the GM. If the GM and player doesnt want character death then the character doesn't die...they just suffer whatever fate the GM/player work out as agreeable together.

It's a game style people agree to play under ideally decided in session zero, not just an arbitrary veto power players gave to themselves against the GMs will.

 

[JiffyPopTart]

To my mind "death sucks" is the feature, not the bug (I say this as someone who plays more than DMs). The fact that it is unpleasant and even sometimes random is what makes me as a player invested in the game, particularly combat. Yes I have had some disappointing games when a beloved character died unexpectedly, but I have far, far more where my PC took a real risk and did something AWESOME.

In my experience as a player and DM I have never seen another "consequence" that worked well. They tend to be (as the OP points out) something that tramples your character concept like getting maimed or turned into a gnome. Otherwise they are some form of nominal consequence that is actually a nothingburger. The main examples I have seen are:

1) Captured. The only thing more boring than a dead PC is a captured PC. So this inevitably turns into RP being in a cell for 10 minutes and then a miraculous escape with all of your gear.

2) You work for me now. The PC either owes the bad guy who spared their life or the deity who brought them back from the dead. Now they have to ..... go on adventures for them. This is not a consequence, it is a plot hook.

3)"Loss." PCs fail in some objective, and maybe lose an NPC they cared about or something. Again, in my experience this just turns into the next plot hook to avenge x or redeem themselves. Sorry, that is not a consequence, that is Act One.

My buddy had a poker night a few years back where we just played for chips but no money. By the end of the night everyone was going "all in" every hand. The "consequences" of losing were so minimal that no one even cared it they won or lost. To my mind, this is the risk you run by trying to take PC death off the table as a consequence. Unless you can replace it with something that is actually meaningful to the players, you run a bigger risk of player apathy.

It sounds like in your group the characters dont have an investment in their own goals and ambitions separate from the main plot they share as a party. If you were invested in a subplot or subplots there would be many things you could "lose" besides your life that would set the character back personally but not physically.

 

[Micah Sweet]

A character isnt dead until the GM says they are dead. In your statent you imply that "the world" makes death happen, but "the world" is the GM. If the GM and player doesnt want character death then the character doesn't die...they just suffer whatever fate the GM/player work out as agreeable together.

It's a game style people agree to play under ideally decided in session zero, not just an arbitrary veto power players gave to themselves against the GMs will.

If the DM is playing fairly and neutrally, the PCs die when the rules say they do.

And of course its a game style ideally decided prior to play. No more or less valid than many others.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

If the DM is playing fairly and neutrally, the PCs die when the rules say they do.

And of course its a game style ideally decided prior to play. No more or less valid than many others.

And if the DM fairly and neutrally lays out, in advance, that death will be uncommon, and when it does occur, it will always be either temporary (as in, you'll get better without intervention) or reversible (you can be revived, but it will require effort)?

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Pool for resurrection? What, is the church selling indulgences? Is eternal life for only the rich?

I mean...depending on the edition you play, resurrection spells can be extremely expensive.

Yes I have had some disappointing games when a beloved character died unexpectedly, but I have far, far more where my PC took a real risk and did something AWESOME.

Doesn't this imply that those risks must have been a lot less likely than they seemed? You can't beat the odds on the average--otherwise, the odds are simply not what they're claimed to be. If they're "taking a real risk," what chance of failure is that? 50%, say? It certainly doesn't sound like 50% of the time it's ended in failure. It sounds like the vast, vast majority of the time, it's ended in success. That implies the risk is already quite low to begin with. I don't really see the merit of "extremely low, but non-zero, chance of very disappointing results" when compared to "zero chance of disappointing results, but actually high chance of undesirable results."