D&D (2024) Monsters of the Multiverse: the death of eldritch blast?

[Yaarel]

If character death needs to be a real risk, how can it also be "just a dumb thing"?

If the players are overly worried about their character dying at any moment, they are less likely to invest in the lives of the characters, their ambitions, the world setting around them. Death makes the game shallow − videogamey.

There is almost a Maslows Heirarchy at work. The lack of safety prevents the characters from self-actualizing.



But I feel there is a balance. The game becomes more visceral to the players, if the threat of death is real, thus more fun. Run the narrative like a movie. There is a place for action scenes. But there also needs to be a place for safety, confidence, comradery, achievement, and celebration. Also curiosity and playfulness. And challenges that are easy when the characters can show off.

 

[Vaalingrade]

It's a matter of degree. It doesn't have to be Game of Thrones.

Audiences raised in a post-On Writing (the book that drastically hampered good modern writing because people don't understand genre and think everything a horror/thriller writer says can be applied to action adventure and sweet romance 1 for 1) world pretty much demand a death per book or season, usually occurring over the course of a month. Imagine if someone you knew (and cared enough to have some level of shock value to the audience because that's the point of character deaths at this point) died every single month.

 

[Frozen_Heart]

I feel there is a hard balance with character death. If there is no risk of death, it's just dull and feels low stakes. The party ends up acting like they're invulnerable and thinking everything has no consequences.

But if you go the other way and make life too fast and cheap, players can't get attached to their characters. Why write a backstory when they will be gone the next session?

Generally I prefer death's happening when they mean something. Such as when fighting an important bad guy. Rather than stepping on a random trap at lvl 2 and getting instigibbed.

 

[Remathilis]

Imagine if someone you knew (and cared enough to have some level of shock value to the audience because that's the point of character deaths at this point) died every single month.

I think that's called "being in the military during active combat" which would be the closest thing in modern parlance to adventuring.

Then again, I tend to see D&D closer to comic books; the only other major genre where death and resurrection is common. In a setting where death isn't the end, you just accept that.

 

[Vaalingrade]

Comics could also learn a thing or two about not pointlessly killing characters for no good reason other than 'shock'.

 

[Frozen_Heart]

I think that's called "being in the military during active combat" which would be the closest thing in modern parlance to adventuring.

Yep this. Adventuring isn't some peaceful and low risk recreational activity. Combat is dangerous, and that should be represented in game.

Irl soldiers in active warzones do lose people they know on a regular basis.

 

[Remathilis]

Comics could also learn a thing or two about not pointlessly killing characters for no good reason other than 'shock'.

If only out of shock fatigue. Death in comics should be a threat, but killing Batman did the nth time knowing he'll be Batman again in a year is tiring. However, I'd also hate to return to silver-age Superdickery when stakes were nonexistent.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Audiences raised in a post-On Writing (the book that drastically hampered good modern writing because people don't understand genre and think everything a horror/thriller writer says can be applied to action adventure and sweet romance 1 for 1) world pretty much demand a death per book or season, usually occurring over the course of a month. Imagine if someone you knew (and cared enough to have some level of shock value to the audience because that's the point of character deaths at this point) died every single month.

That would indeed suck, but to be fair, I'm in a far less dangerous profession, with far lower stakes. Surely we can agree that adventurers live very different, far more violent lives than most other people?

 

[Yaarel]

As DM, I intentionally include encounters that are way too difficult (that require the players to flee or think outside the box) and that are way too easy. ... Heh, and sometimes these happen unintentionally.

The unevenness creates uncertainty about the amount of danger, and adds more verisimilitude. Meanwhile, some encounters actually are deadly, while other encounters are cakewalks where the characters can show off.

 

[Guest 7034872]

For myself, I favor the same approach as Yaarel, but I also try to stay conscious of the party I'm in and what it is they're looking for. Different people prefer different things for different reasons, right? Some people are highly risk-averse in life and play D&D in part as a way of escaping that aversion, so for them death, danger, and surprises are great. Some people are highly risk-averse in life and play D&D much as they live life: risk-averse. For them, the Tomb of Horrors is just a bad choice. Some people have seriously high-stress careers in life and play D&D as a way of escaping that, so for them a pressure cooker adventure might not be my best choice. Some have stressful lives and play D&D as a way of rehearsing all that stress and changing some of its outcomes to where they tackle and clobber their imaginary foes in a way they wish they could clobber certain co-workers. For them, combat-heavy adventures with lots of blood work great.

Naturally, only so much DM calibration to the party is possible when you've got six or seven players each with a very different personality, but usually when it's a bunch of longtime friends all around a table, there's some kind of temperamental consensus that I can find.