D&D General If not death, then what?

[Lanefan]

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?

There's been some nights where it seems they're not even playing at an amateur level.

Other nights they might play better than the opposition and still lose due to bad luck.

Whichever arguments you are about to make, now remember than hockey is a game of pure skill,

In fact, it's not. Sure there's tons of skill involved, but (and I can't remember where I saw this, I think it was in reference to betting on sport and how much a referee can affect a game) of all the major sports hockey is the one whose outcomes are most affected by luck and thus least affectable by a referee without it being blatant.

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?

Then that merely takes an absolute and turns it into a trend; the better players will usually (instead of always) outperform the good ones.

 

[DND_Reborn]

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

<snip>

I think that's all the points...

I appreciate you taking the time to go through all this, but there's simply too many variables. Now, if I had been there to view the combat, I might be able to offer a more thorough critique.

Anyway, I'll address a couple points and leave it at that:

Kobold? There's your poor choice right there! (j/k)

But, as I said, 10th-level druid average 53 hit points. You took 52. How badly were you already injured? Were you not able to heal up before the BBEG fight?

Also, if there was any bad luck on the dice rolls it was the sunburst damage roll. Average would be 42, rolling 52 or higher is about 5% of the time. The barbarian should have had a good chance to save, but I don't know the save DC but I would think it should have been about 50/50 or better.

Sunburst doesn't go around cover (or maybe just total cover if you had it?) like fireball, for example. So, if you had total cover, it shouldn't have affected you IMO.

The zombie giant (I would imagine) would have been in the AoE as well, so that should have just about killed it after the heat metal for a couple rounds.

Given the apparent strength of the opposition, I also don't think splitting up was wise (but hindsight is always 20/20, so...).

From the sounds of things: powerful caster (8th level spells minimum), zombie giant (CR 9 or so), and some guards. For 10th level PCs this sounds like it might be a deadly encounter anyway. In which case, even if you are making the best choices, the fight can turn against you.

Anyway, as I've said a few times now, 90% of PC death isn't just bad rolls. Rarely it is only bad luck and poor dice rolls.

This is sort of the problem I have with @DND_Reborn drilling down into @Sabathius42 's story as well.

For the record, bad luck can happen, sure, but IME PC death is due primarily to the way people play their characters 90% of the time.

You pushed your luck when your hit points were low.
You failed to act when you should have.
You didn't understand how a feature worked properly and you (or another PC) died.
You weren't prepared (lack of equipment, knowledge of the battle field, etc.).

Yes, there is always that chance that something happened entirely beyond your control, but it is pretty darn rare. There are also times when the above happen, but you feel you don't really have a choice. Whether or not you actually do is debatable.

Finally, I am not "drilling down" into their story. Yes, I am questioning it because they brought it up as an example of "playing right" and just bad luck. If there was any "just bad luck" it was the damage for sunburst. The damage the spell does is completely out of their control and had only about a 5% chance of rolling that high (or better). Now, maybe less damage would have finished of Yip-Yip. I don't know. But even 52 damage should not take down an average 10th-level druid, even without a CON bonus.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Yes, there is always that chance that something happened entirely beyond your control, but it is pretty darn rare.

Then your experience significantly differs from mine. Radically differs, actually. I find most players are so over-cautious and ultra-planning that they prepare for several contingencies that weren't even possible to begin with, just in case.

I had thought this was the whole point of the heavy logistical/"strategic" gameplay favored by old-school D&D?

 

[Vaalingrade]

It's really weird to see the juxtaposition between people being like 'interacting with the game is risking death, so you deserved character death' and then those being like 'how dare the players not want to interact with my game because they don't want their character to die'

Like, maybe one of these feeds the other.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

The rules actually say that if you get to zero hp, failed 3 death save you die. Period. Players can and do indeed get to that stage pretty easily.

Depends on the edition. In my experience with 5th edition, unless you're at really low levels or get really unlucky with the dice, the players only ever get to the stage where they might be dying if the DM placed something in the campaign that could get them to that state (a more powerful monster than they could handle, a trap, environmental conditions, etc).

Again, I know there are rules for what happens if you get to 0 hit points. What I'm saying is that the chance of getting to 0 hit points is only possible through the DM.

Yes a DM chooses the challenges, the players choose if they will engage, parley of flee. Not every encounters should be "balanced" so that the players always win. When there are no risks, there is no glory.

And the DM chooses how/who the monsters attack, if they're doing nonlethal damage, how hard it is to parley and if the PCs succeed, and if the monsters choose to pursue the fleeing party (and quite a few monsters have higher speeds than the average PC).

And there are ways to lose a battle other than death. The party could be captured, robbed, enslaved, or lose limbs. The DM chooses if/when the PCs die.

No, the DM does not choose when the PCs decide to rests. But they may or may not have consequences. Random rolls are random rolls and resting is solely on the shoulders of the PCs.

Yeah, the DM does. The DM chooses if their rest is interrupted by a monster and if the dungeon has places where the party could take a rest. The PCs decide if they want to rest or not, but the DM decides if their rest succeeds.

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.

I'm sorry, but, no, you do choose when the PCs die. Unless you're a really new DM, you probably know how much your PCs can take. You know which battles they can win and which ones they're likely to lose. You know which traps are deadly and which traps they can avoid easily. Are your dungeons filled to the brim with traps as deadly as the Tomb of Horrors? If so, then you chose to place them there fully aware of the possible consequences for the PCs. If your dungeons all aren't as deadly as the Tomb of Horrors . . . why not? Why aren't you filling every dungeon in your game with traps as deadly as the Tomb of Horrors? Because I think you know the answer to that question, and I think that the answer proves that the DM chooses whether or not the PCs die.

Again, nope, the DM does not say they die. The dice do. Roll on the open. Do not hide and you will see. It is not to a DM to choose when a death is "impactful" or "important". As harsh as it may seems, sometimes life's a b**ch. A meaningless death can be tragic too. But guess what? This is usually the sign to make another story with an other character. Avenge me my brother/sister/cousin or whatever!

And when are the dice given the opportunity to kill the players? When the DM gives them the option to.

You choose the traps. You choose the monsters. You choose the weather and other environmental factors (cliffs, bridges, lava, pits of acid, etc). You choose if a monster chooses to attack a PC that's making death saves. You choose if the monster attacks the healer before the rest of the party. You choose if the combat encounter is with 17 flumphs or 17 tarrasques. You choose if rocks fall and everyone dies. You choose the adventure you run. You choose if the monsters do lethal damage or not.

The dice don't choose any of that. You, the DM, choose the answers to all of that. And if you do choose to roll the dice and make those situations random . . . you're the one chosing to allow the option of your PCs dying. You choose when the dice are rolled, that is literally written in the DMG. If a PC dies, it is the DMs fault, because they chose all of the circumstances that led up to their death and you chose to have them die instead of fall unconscious, or be taken prisoner, or be saved at the last minute by a Deus Ex Machina.

The DM chooses when the PCs die. And that's not a bad thing. I'm fine with that. However, I realize this and specifically craft my campaigns under this realization. I know that the PCs dying is my fault, so I try to make them matter.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

So, just a complete rejection of the premise? Glad you dropped by.

Yes. I reject the premise that the DM can be "fair" or "neutral". I reject the premise that the rules or dice choose when the PCs die. In my experience in both DMing and playing, the exact opposite is true. The DM isn't fair or neutral. The rules and dice only choose when the PCs die when the DM allows them to. If the DM chooses when the dice are rolled (a core principle of the game and the DMG), then they choose when the PCs die. Not the dice. If the DM chooses the rules of the game (also a core principle of the game), the DM chooses when the PCs die.

I reject the premise because it's wrong.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Yes. I reject the premise that the DM can be "fair" or "neutral". I reject the premise that the rules or dice choose when the PCs die. In my experience in both DMing and playing, the exact opposite is true. The DM isn't fair or neutral. The rules and dice only choose when the PCs die when the DM allows them to. If the DM chooses when the dice are rolled (a core principle of the game and the DMG), then they choose when the PCs die. Not the dice. If the DM chooses the rules of the game (also a core principle of the game), the DM chooses when the PCs die.

I reject the premise because it's wrong.

You are arguing at the same level as the statement, "the PC death is the player's fault because they could have chosen to watch a movie instead". Ridiculous.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

You are arguing at the same level as the statement, "the PC death is the player's fault because they could have chosen to watch a movie instead". Ridiculous.

No. Because the PC is just playing a single character. The DM is playing the entire rest of the world. They choose literally every circumstance where the PCs could die.

If you run a combat encounter with a party of 4 level 5 PCs and have them fight 20 Tarrasques . . . whose fault is it if they die? Clearly, it's the DM's fault, because they chose to have the PCs encounter those monsters. It's not ridiculous to admit this.

This applies to the entire rest of the game (admittedly to a lesser extent, but it's still true).

 

[tetrasodium]

No. Because the PC is just playing a single character. The DM is playing the entire rest of the world. They choose literally every circumstance where the PCs could die.

If you run a combat encounter with a party of 4 level 5 PCs and have them fight 20 Tarrasques . . . whose fault is it if they die? Clearly, it's the DM's fault, because they chose to have the PCs encounter those monsters. It's not ridiculous to admit this.

This applies to the entire rest of the game (admittedly to a lesser extent, but it's still true).

Next week I fully expect to kill one of my platers in the first round of continued combat, they forced my hand & left me no choice. A party of 5 started with a medium encounter but refused to go inside & engage the caster+caster's allies & tried to juggle difficult terrain of their party members in a 5ft wide hallway so they could bottle up the one melee ally & prevent the caster+basically familiar from getting out into the hall it had no interest in getting into. The first round of combat the warlock was complaining each round that they couldn't get up into range to shoot anything with everyone in the way. The second round they dropped one of the allies & still decided to remain in the hallway expecting the monsters to come out so they could basically be kited. Mind you the entire fight there is a door across the hall which the players know about and can see. Round 3 the caster's remaining ally runs into the hall & opens the door to alert a second encounter. The players continue to stick with the hallway ignoring the caster because the caster has a beast ally across the hall interacting with the players who think themselves bottlenecks. Now it's round 4 I think & the caster is about to switch from missing with cantrips to fireball but the guy who fancies himself a frontliner (but is not) is down to pretty low heath & there are still caster's allyx2+caster. Sure they could target someone other than the PC I expect to have about a 100% chance of being taken down by the fireball (even on a successful save)... except they can't because the entire party is out of LoS to the side of the door in the hall.

I repeatedly mentioned the warlock's earlier complaint about difficulties doing anything in the first few rounds of combat & repeatedly drew attention to the presence of a caster but this late tier2 group decided that they had plot armor if they used the hallway in a way that hamstrung their own caster while ignoring the caster to deal with mooks.

Could the caster have opened with the fireball when everyone was at full health? sure but why would they given the overwhelming odds & pointlessness of such an action when he could make his death mean something for his allies further in. The next session begins with the caster's turn dollowed by his remaining allies

 

[pemerton]

It really does come down to the type of game you want to run, I guess. Some people like all storytelling to occur organically, and that's fine. But I like creating a story, finding ways to invest the players into the game world by making it their story.

And having death be always on the table does sort run counter to this impulse. But like I said before, I think what I'm missing is that the player characters don't have built in stakes often. If they have nothing to lose, then death is the only thing that makes them strive to overcome adversity, basically.

If I can persuade the players to give me things their characters don't want to lose, then maybe having things other than death as a fail state become possible. But I know it's hard to give the DM things like family members to work with- you'll be happily adventuring, and then one day, oh no, your sister has been kidnapped!

Let's just say I've seen a lot of PC's who are orphans...

I'm not sure how serious this post is meant to be. (I get the last line is wry and slightly wistful; but maybe also a bit exaggerated?) Which means I'm not sure how serious a reply you are inviting. If this reply is too literal/serious, I apologise in advance.

With that throat-clearing done . . . have you considered looking at how non-D&D RPGs handle this? Perhaps playing some, but even if not playing at least reading their rulebooks and seeing how they approach the relationship between PC build, stakes in which players can invest, GM techniques for putting those things at stake, etc? Burning Wheel is a poster-child for this. But other systems that talk about this include HeroWars/Quest (Robin Laws 2000-onwards Glorantha-oriented RPG); The Dying Earth (Vancian cynical comedy); Pendragon, to an extent; Agon (John Harper's game of Ancient Greek heroics); and of course Apocalypse World.

Another system that can do this, and is in many respects rather D&D-ish, is Torchbearer: it's an adaptation by the BW gang of their core system to support D&D-type adventure RPGing. As part of PC build, one thing that players do is establish their PCs' family, friend, mentor, enemy, etc. One of the players, whose PC is an Elven Dreamwalker (in D&D terms, think roughly of an Elven mage or bladedancer), chose an Elven ranger as the PC's friend. In our last session, the PCs were preparing to trek across the wilderness, though neither is very good at doing that. So the player of the Dreamwalker thought it would be handy to have the assistance of a ranger! And therefore the Dreamwalker reached out to her friend in her dreams - mechanically, this was a Circles check, which is a type of Streetwise/Contacts mechanic in the BW family of games. The check failed, and so the character didn't make contact with her friend as she had hoped - instead, she saw terrible things in her dreams: her ranger friend had been captured by her enemy, a rival magic-user, and was being held prisoner in the tower the PCs were planning to trek to.

The resolution, in play, of the Circles check, and its failure and consequence, took five or ten minutes: straightforward framing, check, and then narration of consequence. You can see that it took as its input some already-established elements of the PC build. And those elements made it easy for me, as GM, to set out the consequence for failure - which gives the PC a connection to the ingame situation, and a reason to confront adversity, which is quite separate from any risk of death.

It took basically no effort at all, other than playing the game, for what I've described to occur. But your post - again, taken fairly literally - suggests that you're not seeing this sort of thing in your play although you would like to. Hence my suggestion that you might want to look at some systems that are expressly designed to make it happen fairly effortlessly.