D&D General If not death, then what?

[EzekielRaiden]

huh?.... regeneration is literally a spell in the core rules as are most if not all of the raise dead type spells. I believe they might even be part of the OLG SRD stuff.... That's hardly an oberoni fallacy patch over problem.

I run Dungeon World, for one thing. For another, if I were going to use loss-of-limb as a permanent condition, it would only be in a context where regenerate isn't available, or wouldn't work (e.g. the limb was cauterized with felfire, which causes wounds that cannot be restored with regenerate.) Funny how quickly the "5e is a toolbox, people use it however they wish" goes out the window when one can score a point by quoting RAW.

More importantly, I was referring to the artificial limbs. As I explicitly said: "Even if I did allow 'replacement limbs,'" very explicitly talking about prosthesis, not regeneration. This is not some hidden deep meaning. I literally used the phrase "replacement limbs," in quotes.

 

[Lanefan]

Not the person you asked these of, but:

I am assuming that, when a player in one of your D&D game suffers the death of their PC, they (the player) are allowed to keep playing at the table.

Unless said player was already getting the boot anyway (a very rare thing), yes.

How long do they have to wait before they start playing again?

Highly variable. If they've a second PC in the party (it's allowed) there's no wait at all. If not, then if they've something ready to rock it might come in fairly soon; if they have to roll something up then obviously it's not coming in before there's enough generation been done to at least mae it playable. And in any case sometimes in-fiction concerns make the wait a bit longer; everyone understands this.

Are they allowed to bring a new PC into the same adventuring party?

Yes; never mind one may already be there.

Is there a rule that the new PC must be mechanically weaker in some fashion? Or must have a more disadvantageous fictional position than the PC who died?

It'll come in at a lower level than the party average, which may or may not be a weaker position than the PC who just died depending what its level was relative to average. Fictional position is highly variable, to the case-by-case level.

 

[Lanefan]

Because in my expeirence, players rarely make such obviously poor decisions.

You've obviously never had me as a player.

 

[Lanefan]

And in fact, you seem to make character death seem rather meaningless. You just make a new character and keep playing the game.

Meaningless or not, it's like a sports franchise: when a player retires you draft or trade for a replacement. When a character dies you recruit a replacement.

Character death MUST be on the table, or nothing, no loss, no consequence, no story can possibly have meaning. It is something you don't get distraught over, something that you speak of in some pretty casual terms since you can just... make a new character.

Not getting worked up over it is IMO the best way to go. Sometimes you just gotta take one on the metaphorical chin (whether deserved or not) and move on.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

I don't think anyone has said they forbid spells like revivify reincarnate raise dead resurrection & so on. The mere existence of those spells makes PC death a costly but not unrecoverable consequence of a PC getting killed. Those spells existing has even been pointed out a few times by people saying that it's no big deal if PCs die & that the won't hold back if PCs are about to die.

I didn't mention resurrection magic at all in my post, and it wasn't in the post I was quoting, so this whole post is a whole different discussion. Maybe I was unclear, because that's not what I meant by "permanent death".

Its certainly better for me.

Sure. I get that. That's what my whole post was about. Your style is better for you, my style is better for me. It's subjective. That was my point. If you don't disagree, nice.

I dont think anyone is saying that it isn't valid to play without permanent character death. This is all explaining preferences, and people futility trying to change other people's minds for some reason.

Helldritch was. I'm pretty sure I saw a couple of other people say that too.

If I'm wrong, sound off if you're here for some other reason.

I actually came into this thread to explain something else, I just got sucked into the "my playstyle is better than yours" argument like I often do.

 

[DND_Reborn]

This. Is part of the confusion I'm getting from you.

I'm honestly not sure why that is confusing...

Fail states come from the player's "poor choices" but now you admit that you are analyzing the player and not the DM's choices, and admit that the DMs choices can lead to the player "fail state". Though, oddly, it isn't that the DM makes "poor choices" it is that they are "out of line" or "miscalculate"

The DM being out of line or miscalculating is equivalent to poor choices. You can just as easily say the player miscalculates how long his hit points will last against a foe because he is pressing his luck.

And this is the narrative that frustrates me. And I also wonder how much of your experience of the character's death being the fault of the player's "poor choices" comes from when you were DMing. Because in my expeirence, it is often a result of the dice going bad, or miscalculations on the part of the DM (Me)

Oh, so now you just want to think that all the PC deaths are my fault because I happen to be DMing? Wrong. I'm not saying I haven't done it in the past -- my first 5E encounter was misjudged as I didn't understand the balance and was comparing it to AD&D. A critical hit caused a PC to die in the first round. Not the player's poor choice at all, my bad for miscalculating and my inexperience. I apologized to the players, we had a bit of a laugh, and after they managed to win the fight (barely), the curate was able to raise the deceased PC. Since then, it never happened again.

I'll give you two more examples, the last times I've seen PC deaths...

1. About a month ago in my new Monday night group. Since these are new players I was letting them make the decisions and drive the story. They had us split up into two groups (1st poor choice, as I just shook my head...) to search some buildings. One group of 2 and another of 3 PCs. The DM was running the 2-party group first, and they met two cultists and defeated them, but one PC was injured. Then the first zombie came. They PCs yelled for help and the rest of us came running, luckily we weren't that far away yet. Our DM admittedly is rather new, but fighting zombies isn't too bad, of course, but we're 1st-level, so not necessarily a cakewalk, either.

The injured PC, instead of being defensive and waiting for help to arrive, decided to attack (2nd). He was hit again and went down. Meanwhile, his companion was fighting a 2nd zombie which just joined.

Next round the rest of us arrived and engage the zombies. We healed the downed PC, but he was hit again and went back down (darn whack-a-mole!) because (again) he didn't dodge when he got up on his turn (3rd). Anyway, we then destroyed the first zombie, which exploded in a ball of acid spray! The DM has us all roll DEX saves, some made it, some failed. BUT the "bad luck" was the DM's "custom" zombies exploded for 4d6 acid damage (4th) and he rolled 23 points! Yikes, right? But even if he had rolled average 14 damage, it would drop any who failed their save, and even some who made it (like our 7 HP sorcerer...).

Obviously exploding-acid-zombies dealing 4d6 damage vs. 1st-level PCs is a miscalculation on the DM's part, which led to a TPK. My PC was the only one who went to 0 hp after making my save, the rest died outright (some due to low hp, others due to being injured). But even if they had been at full HP, none of them would have been conscious, regardless.

So, the ultimate issue was the DM's miscalculation.

2. Two weeks later I was running a game with the same group. 3rd-level this time. They were given clues this was a dangerous area! On entering a maze, two scouts working in tandem to keep an eye on each other (they were learning, unfortunately not enough). The first was invisible due to a spell cast by another PC. The second was following by holding a rope, which the first also held. Two other PCs were keeping watch at the maze entrance, also watching the second scout. A short way in, a minotaur appeared and, moving toward the second scout, literally ran into the first since it occupied the space it needed to pass through. Sensing something might be there, the minotaur attacked with reckless attack and hit, dealing 2d12+4 damage, which is A LOT for a 3rd-level PC!

They realized they needed to run, but as the second one moved back he saw a 2nd minotaur and rushed at it to attack (1st poor choice) it to prevent it from blocking their retreat. He could have fled, knowing his still invisible ally would be able to run without an OA since he was invisible. They both could have made it out.

Hearing the fight, the other two went in to help. I'm not going to go into the full play-by-play, but after getting hit the second scout didn't defend themselves (dodge) to wait for the help, but insisted on attacking. The critical hit which landed next resulted instant death. If the PC had dodged, it most likely would not have been a hit, let along a critical hit.

By being overly aggressive, not thinking about defense, etc. that second scout ended up dying. Even if the hit hadn't been critical, it would have likely dropped the scouting PC.

Again, these are new players, but were warned this area was dangerous. They realized the danger but the one player decided to engage a much more powerful foe instead of retreating to the others. The invisible scout would have been able to flee before the second minotaur cut him off, or could have snuck by / tumbled past to escape. There might have been issues with it, but we'll never know.

In conclusion, can bad rolls contribute to a PC's death? Of course! But for a player to claim it was just bad luck IME is often wrong. Poor choices contribute to PC death more than the dice rolls.

Maybe I won't convince you, but I seriously do not understand this insistence, except as part of this idea of "skilled play" and this idea that death only happens if you make the wrong call. Because in my expeirence, players rarely make such obviously poor decisions.

If your experiences differ, fine, great. Can a PC die even when "played well" due to bad luck? Yes. It happens. For the record, I NEVER SAID it only happens if you make the wrong call. I've said repeatedly that bad luck can kill PCs, but that is rarely the sole reason. If you stopped reading my posts as "absolute" statements, you might get further, but I'm done justifying my point of view.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I run Dungeon World, for one thing. For another, if I were going to use loss-of-limb as a permanent condition, it would only be in a context where regenerate isn't available, or wouldn't work (e.g. the limb was cauterized with felfire, which causes wounds that cannot be restored with regenerate.) Funny how quickly the "5e is a toolbox, people use it however they wish" goes out the window when one can score a point by quoting RAW.

More importantly, I was referring to the artificial limbs. As I explicitly said: "Even if I did allow 'replacement limbs,'" very explicitly talking about prosthesis, not regeneration. This is not some hidden deep meaning. I literally used the phrase "replacement limbs," in quotes.

I have zero problem with no permanent character death in Dungeon World, for the record. Completely different game.

 

[Chaosmancer]

A game this is fundamentally about getting into deadly situations and trying to survive while accomplishing your goals as a team makes zero sense to me if survival is guaranteed, even if accomplishing your goals isn't.

I think this is probably the biggest difference between us. I don't see trying to survive as part of the game. Heck, the "deadly situations" part is mostly a consequence of the types of heroics the party wants to get up to. But I know I've been on the edge of my seat when fellow party members step into a dueling ring or an arena. Death isn't on the table there, you cannot die in a friendly duel, but I'm still invested because survival isn't the point.

When we delve into the Lich's tomb, it isn't a question of "can we survive" but it is a question of "Can we stop the Lich". And this could be in part because if survival was a goal... we wouldn't be going on the adventure. We want to survive, because we want to keep playing these characters, but it isn't a goal to survive. Just like it isn't a goal or a question in 90% of media whether or not the protagonist survives til the end of the story.

As @overgeeked said above, I would bow out of any D&D game the first time a PC should have died according to the rules but didn't because their player didn't want them to. Life and death means life and death for the PC. I can do this partly because verisimilitude matters a lot to me, and if your PC should die because the situation demands death then that is that, but also because a PC death isn't even the end of the adventure, let alone the end of my fun. Its just a thing that sometimes happens.

But does the situation need to demand it?

Like, let's take a full on Deus ex Machina. Pelor sends a literal angel to revive you, or some other blatant divine intervention. Sure, if you are Smedly the theif who nicked Pelor's silver, this is bizarrely out-of-character and would break immersion. If you are Truth, the Celestial Warlock Pelor chose to send on a mission to stop Moloch's agents, and you haven't stopped them yet? Then Pelor going "I do not give you permission to die until your mission is complete" fits into the logic of the Game World 100%. This totally could happen in a fantasy story. And since you almost failed, Pelor demands more of you because they are investing in your life.

And I think that is why a lot of us kind of scratch our heads. Death is already a revolving door in DnD. There are literal forces of the universer like Levistus which are bound to offer aid to mortals in peril. There is always something that can be done in the situation, the situation very very rarely "demands" death nor does it demand that death is irreversible.

You may find that Gonzo, or out-of-genre, but this is high fantasy where people summon angels and descend into hell to punch out embodiments of evil. The question isn't "is it possible" but "what are the consequences" and it has the additional bonus of keeping the character in the story, which is important to a lot of us.

The one thing I have never done is get legitimately upset when my character dies. For me, always, the players and the campaign matter more than the PC. Every character enters the story and plays their part for as long as they have, at which point they bow out and other PCs take up the tale.

See, for me and for a lot of the people I play with? The PCs are integral to the health of the Campaign. If I have Truth, the Celestial Warlock who is tracking the cult of Moloch, then if Truth vanishes, all the stuff I was doing with Moloch's agents is disrupted. That was designed to be THEIR part of the story, and focus on the things that player wanted to do. Maybe they make a new character who follows the same plot, but I feel like that should be their choice.

And it is worse if you have something built up with a specific connection between a single character and a single NPC villain. The "I'm hunted by X" story is pretty compelling for some people, but if they are dead, then whatever planning I've put into that storyline is just gone, because you can't hunt them if they are dead.

So, I agree with you that the players are most important, and the Campaign is important, but I see the PCs as vital to the campaign. They aren't and sometimes really shouldn't be interchangeable pieces.

 

[Medic]

"Regeneration" doesn't exist in my game, so...that's not relevant. Even if I did allow "replacement limbs," such things always come with their own weaknesses. That's still a permanent consequence. You've found something to address it. That doesn't mean the issue is gone.

This is straight-up Oberoni Fallacy. Just because you can patch over the problem, doesn't mean the problem isn't there!


I'm sorry, what? Losing a kingdom is a devastating loss. It almost always results in massive deaths, and if the PCs are actually decent folks, the people taking over are almost certainly going to inflict terrible harm. You can't bring those dead people back. Stolen resources or national treasures, damaged land...these are things that can take generations to restore.

The Trojans lost a kingdom. The story of that loss--and their centuries-long recovery--forms one of the greatest epic cycles in Western literature. Are you really going to write off the Iliad, Odyssey, and Aeneid as a "who cares?" story? How about the Mahabharata, or perhaps the Shahnameh, or the Romance of the Three Kingdoms? Stories where a kingdom is lost are quite often about the permanent scars that such losses leave behind on the people, the country, the land itself.


I genuinely cannot understand how someone could become so jaded that losing the people they love is a routine occurrence, something to be shrugged off. If you actually valued the lost person as a person, their loss is a permanent thing. As I quoted, IIRC earlier in this thread, "Your absence has gone through me/Like thread through a needle/Everything I do is stitched with its color."


Some items carry sentimental value. That cannot be replaced. Are you truly so jaded that this has no meaning to you?


You can have that without having character death.

Remembrance does not require character death. It requires losses that cannot be restored to what they were before--losses that leave a mark, even long after whatever recovery.

Again, you have not actually SHOWN that character death is the only permanent loss. And you have been rather blithe about all the other sorts of losses, and what permanent impact they can have.

You say I must have had bad experiences such that I cannot see the good in people. I hear what you say here and think the same thing--who hurt you so much that you can shrug off such things so blithely? Who stole from you, not only the joy of these things, but also the pain of their loss?

Now, I want to preface this by stating that I'm not really convinced by either extreme position. That said, I usually make the attempt to understand what people are trying to say, not what they have literally said. The point that Helldritch seems to be driving at is, no matter how many loved ones or treasures a character loses, they are still affecting the world so long as they persist.

Hope springs eternal, and they can still try to reclaim what was lost, rededicate their life to a worthwhile cause, find surrogate family in the rest of the party, or at least try to mete out some meager vengeance, however unfulfilling. Their kingdom may have burned, but it is not the end (unless the DM chooses to wrap up the campaign on the Lich Lord's victory, which in that case, I applaud their delicious malice). Removing the character from play is the only thing that cuts this thread short, reducing their chances of building new bonds or ultimately prevailing against the villain from "near nihil" to "flat zero."

 

[Chaosmancer]

This is mandatory at my table. You have to be able to play at least one other character (and its followers if any). Case being that if a player misses a session, that character is still available for play. This is the reason why there is a copy of all characters at my house.

And remember, I do not play the NPC accompanying the players. The players take that responsibility. I do not want to play "GOTCHA" moments with trusted NPCs. Been there, done that and no thanks. Not ever again since 1984.

Um, where is "Gotcha" coming from here? It seems a weird non-sequiter. I've often found that is an NPC is played by other party members... they aren't played at all. Because the player is busy playing their character and has no interest in playing random goblin NPC or Wizard's Familiar, because.. playing the NPCs is the DM's job.

And, frankly, do you feel like the player's forced to role-play as another player's character do a good job? Or is it only a passable job at best? Because in my expeirence, it is usually the absent player's character being utterly silent until another player speaks up for them making a joke or doing something memey like "Isn't this how that player always is, hahaha" and never... actually role-playing them.