D&D 5E Let 'em live or die?

[Guest 6801328]

PCs eventually return, defeat the invading force, and restore balance. Perhaps the adventure even involves them finding a way to reverse time before the billions die.

Again, the adventure continues. Try again if you want.

How is that different from having resurrection cast on a dead PC? How exactly are you defining "irreversible"?

EDIT: Ok, they fail to save the NPC princess and she dies. Does that meet your very narrowly defined criteria?

 

[prabe]

PCs eventually return, defeat the invading force, and restore balance. Perhaps the adventure even involves them finding a way to reverse time before the billions die.

Again, the adventure continues. Try again if you want.

I never said it was the end of the adventure. I said it was an irreversible defeat. They are not the same thing.

The PCs' irretrievably losing every single person and probably place and maybe thing they ever cared about is a real, irreversible defeat, but yes, the story can go on from there.

 

[Guest 6801328]

Again, the adventure continues.

Oh, wait, is that how you're defining "irreversible defeat"? That the adventure ends?

Ooh...I've got another one. They fail to stop the ancient god from casting the spell that destroys the Multiverse, but at the last moment they escape into a pocket dimension that is protected from the spell, where they are put into suspended animation for all eternity. Nothing exists outside of the dimension, and they are unable to take any actions, but they are very much alive.

Does the adventure continue?

 

[DND_Reborn]

Well, if you define irreversible defeat to mean "a PC dies" then you've got a neat little tautology going on and, no, I can't provide you an answer that will satisfy you.

I am arguing that nothing (even death thanks to spells, etc.) results in irreversible defeat.

How is that different from having resurrection cast on a dead PC? How exactly are you defining "irreversible"?

I'm not. I didn't start the "irreversible" thing. I just said that without death (or a TPK really) the adventure will always go on, and the PCs will either win or result in a stalemate--you can't, in essence, lose.

I never said it was the end of the adventure. I said it was an irreversible defeat. They are not the same thing.

But it is irreversible, as I just showed.

Oh, wait, is that how you're defining "irreversible defeat"? That the adventure ends?

Correct, and basically a TPK (only possible if you have death on the table) is it (for those PCs, I mean... of course, "other" PCs can pick up and continue if the table wants...).

 

[prabe]

Oh, wait, is that how you're defining "irreversible defeat"? That the adventure ends?

I was thinking something similar. Once you end the adventure the defeat stops mattering, really.

 

[Guest 6801328]

This is a dumb argument.

 

[prabe]

But it is irreversible, as I just showed.

By positing the ability to go back in time. Which is arguably bigger magic than bringing someone back from the dead.

And you're presuming that the Inimical Whatevers (which is the name of my next band, btw) aren't themselves altering the past, aren't you?

 

[DND_Reborn]

I was thinking something similar. Once you end the adventure the defeat stops mattering, really.

Precisely. And how do you accomplish this without either:

1. Winning (successful adventure)
2. "Stalemate" (temporary pause---you can keep trying if you want)
3. Death (via TPK).

This is a dumb argument.

It's not IMO. My point has been (since the beginning) that without death (without hope of returning except DM fiat), the adventure always goes on and the PCs will eventually win out or a "stalemate" results.

A game where the PCs are basically guaranteed of winning is boring IMO. YMMV of course.

By positing the ability to go back in time. Which is arguably bigger magic than bringing someone back from the dead

Sure, I never said it wasn't nor that it wouldn't require DM fiat to accomplish. But if the DM wants to let the PCs keep going and try, it is possible. shrug

And you're presuming that the Inimical Whatevers (which is the name of my next band, btw) aren't themselves altering the past, aren't you?

LOL I'm not going to get into the possible paradox of it-- I've just been re-watching the Back to the Future movies and oi...

 

[DND_Reborn]

Anyway, I've already stated my point. I see no purpose in continuing to hash it over.

If a table doesn't want PC death, they are basically agreeing from the beginning the adventure won't end and the PCs will eventually win.

Nothing wrong with that, mind you, just not my thing.

 

[prabe]

If a table doesn't want PC death, they are basically agreeing from the beginning the adventure won't end and the PCs will eventually win.

I don't think anyone said there should never be any PC death. I think what people are saying is it's possible to have the PCs lose, permanently, without it being a TPK or ending the campaign.