D&D General "It's not fun when..."

[EzekielRaiden]

Narratively? Sure; but not everyone cares equally about losses in the narrative,

Not everyone cares equally about death. Which was...sort of my point.

 

[Reynard]

When I ran the 5e version of The Sunless Citadel from Tales from the Yawning Portal, the 1st level cleric went down into the cleft first. I rolled Stealth for the giant rats hiding at the bottom. They beat the cleric's passive Perception, so they got advantage on their attack rolls. One of them got a natural 20. Boom. Insta-kill with the very first dice rolls of the campaign.

The player just looked at me, stunned, and said, "Now what?"

As I recall, I just ruled that the PC was down but not instantly dead, giving the other PCs a chance to kill the rats and save the cleric.

Out of curiosity, why? Was is because the player was new to the game and didn't realize that could happen? Was it because you didn't want to have to deal with introducing a new PC? What made you decide to not just roll with the results of the dice?

 

[overgeeked]

When I ran the 5e version of The Sunless Citadel from Tales from the Yawning Portal, the 1st level cleric went down into the cleft first. I rolled Stealth for the giant rats hiding at the bottom. They beat the cleric's passive Perception, so they got advantage on their attack rolls. One of them got a natural 20. Boom. Insta-kill with the very first dice rolls of the campaign.

The player just looked at me, stunned, and said, "Now what?"

As I recall, I just ruled that the PC was down but not instantly dead, giving the other PCs a chance to kill the rats and save the cleric.

One time we had just started 5E Dungeon of the Mad Mage. We get to like the first or second room and there’s a fight. When the monsters died intellect devourers popped out. First hit was against my PC. My character had INT 8. It went badly. One character down in less than five minutes of total play time. I just started that character. First session, first fight. So I laughed, tore the sheet in half, dug out a high INT back up character, and joined the group. Characters are disposable.

 

[Pedantic]

I've personally had more issues with intraparty conflicts (usually pretty small). I struggled to play a bard in one campaign because the paladin (devoted to a god of passion and exuberance) felt it was hugely out of character to acknowledge any "ends when attacked" CC effect.

 

[Vaalingrade]

Well, one way to solve the DM shortage is to chase away players by telling them it's a game of the imagination where you can craft a hero you want to embody, then rug pull them and tell them it's disposable and they better laugh in joy when it gets taken away or they will be roundly chastised.

 

[MGibster]

If you remove death, its not a game, its just play acting a story in which the PC's cannot lose.

Most of my campaigns have a high rate of attrition, not 5th edition because characters are pretty darned hardy, but it's a rare campaign I have where a PC or two doesn't die. That said, I've run a few campaigns where death was off the table, and you can still run an interesting campaign. The trick is to make sure there are conequences other than death. When I read a Batman comic I know he's not going to die. But if he fails there are other consequences.

 

[Scribe]

Most of my campaigns have a high rate of attrition, not 5th edition because characters are pretty darned hardy, but it's a rare campaign I have where a PC or two doesn't die. That said, I've run a few campaigns where death was off the table, and you can still run an interesting campaign. The trick is to make sure there are conequences other than death. When I read a Batman comic I know he's not going to die. But if he fails there are other consequences.

Yes, but that's a story (Batman) not a game.

Yes, you can tell a story, and sure you can live with failure as a character, but if death isn't on the table, some other fail state needs to exist or you just...what? You walk up to the BBEG and try again?

What is gained, by removal of loss of the character, outside of the obvious "I keep my character."

 

[Xamnam]

Yes, but that's a story (Batman) not a game.

Yes, you can tell a story, and sure you can live with failure as a character, but if death isn't on the table, some other fail state needs to exist or you just...what? You walk up to the BBEG and try again?

Is anyone advocating for a complete lack of fail states?

What is gained, by removal of loss of the character, outside of the obvious "I keep my character."

The ability to incorporate extreme, dire failure into the narrative in a cohesive, contiguous way, like most narratives we engage with.

 

[overgeeked]

Is anyone advocating for a complete lack of fail states?

Most players.

The ability to incorporate failure into the narrative in a cohesive, contiguous way, like most narratives we engage with.

The vast majority of narratives we engage with are not beholden to random die rolls and player shenanigans.

 

[Scribe]

Is anyone advocating for a complete lack of fail states?

The ability to incorporate extreme, dire failure into the narrative in a cohesive, contiguous way, like most narratives we engage with.

I guess that's my issue. It's a game first.

 

[Xamnam]

Most players.

I have expressed before, and will continue to express how much I disagree with this characterization. I have no issue with saying some, or even the majority of players you specifically have played with.

 

[Xamnam]

I guess that's my issue. It's a game first.

I'm not going to disagree that it is that, but humans find narrative in everything, especially things that have any sort of tension and arc, so, I don't see existence as game and potential for narrative experience as competing ideas.

 

[Reynard]

Yes, but that's a story (Batman) not a game.

Yes, you can tell a story, and sure you can live with failure as a character, but if death isn't on the table, some other fail state needs to exist or you just...what? You walk up to the BBEG and try again?

What is gained, by removal of loss of the character, outside of the obvious "I keep my character."

Ostensibly the whole situation has changed. If the campaign has a "no TPKs" rule meaning that the characters somehow survive, however debilitated, then the GM gets some time to adjust the circumstances of play. Maybe it is a week, maybe a month. In either case, the state of the world has changed and the campaign picks up from there.

I'm not a huge fan of "no death" for PCs but it isn't a game ender. The situation changes. Keep playing. Nothing is predetermined. Anything can happen.

 

[overgeeked]

I'm not going to disagree that it is that, but humans find narrative in everything, especially things that have any sort of tension and arc, so, I don't see existence as game and potential for narrative experience as competing ideas.

They are when the game's mechanics and the player's agency force unsatisfying story beats into the narrative.

 

[Scribe]

I'm not going to disagree that it is that, but humans find narrative in everything, especially things that have any sort of tension and arc, so, I don't see existence as game and potential for narrative experience as competing ideas.

I'm not against both, but if im a player, and by rights I either play poorly, roll poorly, or make poor choices, I'd feel patronized if I didn't die.

 

[Xamnam]

I'm not against both, but if im a player, and by rights I either play poorly, roll poorly, or make poor choices, I'd feel patronized if I didn't die.

Hey, fair enough for you! I certainly don't have death off the table for my games. I'm just very much of a fan of using the whole spectrum of potential failure, even when death may be an "obvious" choice.

 

[M_Natas]

Theres a huge difference between feeling entitled to a one spell/hit win and feeling useless because your abilities are nullified completly.

Simple fix for that. Your best spell huts BBEGI screams in rage, Dm writes down damage which is 0 and combat continues. for most spells thus fixes the feeling useless. how is the wizard going to know the Lightning bolt only tickled and the BBEGI hates being ticked?

Because that would mean sending the players the wrong impression (that Lightning is effectively while it is not). That would lead to the players continuing to use the wrong spells.

 

[Lanefan]

Is anyone advocating for a complete lack of fail states?

For mechanical fail states it sometimes seems so, yes.

The ability to incorporate extreme, dire failure into the narrative in a cohesive, contiguous way, like most narratives we engage with.

Which only works if the players care about the narrative enough (and-or are playing the right type of characters) to take failures to heart...which they don't always. Characters always have the option to, in the fiction, just walk away from a failed narrative: "Crap. Our so-called rescue attempt just got the prince killed dead, and the Queen's gonna be some kind of hacked off with us when she finds out. Can we still make it to that ship going to Spieadeia before it sails, and before Her Majesty's finest start looking for us?"

Yes this might bend the DM's plans out of shape, but so be it.

IME narrative losses don't affect characters/players nearly as much, or to the same degree of consistency, as mechanical losses.

 

[Xamnam]

Which only works if the players care about the narrative enough (and-or are playing the right type of characters) to take failures to heart...which they don't always. Characters always have the option to, in the fiction, just walk away from a failed narrative: "Crap. Our so-called rescue attempt just got the prince killed dead, and the Queen's gonna be some kind of hacked off with us when she finds out. Can we still make it to that ship going to Spieadeia before it sails, and before Her Majesty's finest start looking for us?"

In my eyes, running away from the failure is the exact sort of ripe premise to bear fruit later as characters are faced with another terrible situation and have to question whether they want to earnestly wear the label of coward more than once.

 

[Lanefan]

Hey, fair enough for you! I certainly don't have death off the table for my games. I'm just very much of a fan of using the whole spectrum of potential failure, even when death may be an "obvious" choice.

My question, then, is other than death what fail states are left in the game that actually long-term negatively affect the mechanics of a character?

Permanent stat loss - almost gone (is Feeblemind still a thing?).
Level drain - gone.
Limb loss and-or permanent scarring/wounds - gone.
Destruction of magic items (which affects a characters effective power level) - gone.

That don't leave much of a spectrum.