New WotC Article - Deadly Dice

[airwalkrr]

Adventuring is dangerous. There is a reason that not a lot of people do it. Death should be commonplace. But character creation ought to be much simpler and character wealth should be seriously toned down to make introducing a new character to the group easier. And honestly, character death is rarely ever the end in a D&D campaign as long as the raise dead spell exists and the DM is willing to allow it.

 

[dangerous jack]

Copied from my post on the site, since it's something that I feel pretty strongly about.

I'm one of the few to vote for "Characters should never die", but I recognize that this isn't for everyone, and I have enjoyed games a long time ago where death occurred (and was awesome).

Background: My group is late-30's and early-40's, all of us have kids. We get together once / month for a few hours. We generally get through only 2 encounters because each one takes about an hour.

So what happens if a PC dies early in the first encounter. Does that player then sit out for the rest of the encounter (1 full hour)? The rest of the evening? This is unacceptable for us. Getting to dying and missing 2 or 3 turns is bad enough (20-30 minutes).

So my players know their PCs are not going to die. I don't think this makes it any less fun, or them play any less recklessly (except for 1 player, who I can always count on to get things moving).

Solutions:
1. Encounter length should be shorter (true for a variety of reasons), and character generation time should be faster. I can't do much about this without changing systems... and we want to play "D&D".
2. Recognize that missing a turn is already a huge disincentive and allow characters to recover automatically after a missed turn.
3. Allow characters to recover automatically between encounters.
4. Make raise dead trivially easy.

So I wouldn't want to remove PC death from everyone's game, but I do want you guys to recognize that SoD is not fun and not acceptable for my (type of) group.

 

[pemerton]

D&D is a roleplaying game not a storytelling game.

<snip>

Likewise with story games. There are more story oriented rpgs out there with mechanics designed for such a purpose. There is no need to take a hammer to a traditional roleplaying game and pound it into a storytelling system.

I'm curious as to which games you have in mind. But your characterisation of D&D seems to exclude, as elements of the core D&D experience, such 1st ed books as Oriental Adventures and Dragonlance Adventures, huge chunks of 2nd ed (including, for example, all the Ravenloft modules that I know and probably most of the FR ones as well), and 4e. As well as the APs that became popular during the 3E era and remain popular with PF players.

That's a big chunk of people allegedly "taking a hammer" to your traditional game. An alternative reading of the situation would be that your approach to the game is only one of several that a unity edition might accommodate.

As a DM if a character dies in combat and you change the result because it would be a bit anticlimactic, you MIGHT be playing a story game.

Why would I play a crappy game like that when there are plenty of games, including at least one edition of D&D, that will give me climactic fantasy RPGing without pointless character death without having to cheat in action resolution?

 

[pemerton]

My main criteria is that the system does what it says it does.

<snip>

I'd of course like options to change the lethalness built into D&D, instead of me having to figure them out. But a first step to providing such options is making a system that does what it says it does.

People who fudge are happy with a lot of implied mathematical nastiness because of the flavor, knowing full well they will mitigate or nullify it as they desire. This inevitably skews polls of this nature towards more mathematical nastiness than will actually be practiced at the average table.

Two astute posts, but alas I'm out of XP at present.

 

[CM]

Perhaps the easiest solution is to retain the traditional SOD effects but add a module for varying levels of "fate points" or "second chances" or some other such plot protection that players can spend (for themselves or others) to grant additional opportunities to resist or avoid these effects or other types of death.

I like the idea of players being able to help save each other through this method, as well. In 4e, characters can grant each other saving throws against conditions by rolling a successful DC 15 Heal check. Opening this up to other skills would be cool. Perhaps a Bluff or Insight check might grant someone a save against a fear effect, or Diplomacy or Intimidate against a domination effect.

 

[pemerton]

In 4e, characters can grant each other saving throws against conditions by rolling a successful DC 15 Heal check. Opening this up to other skills would be cool. Perhaps a Bluff or Insight check might grant someone a save against a fear effect, or Diplomacy or Intimidate against a domination effect.

I agree - in fact, I'd go further and say that this sort of thing ought already to be possible per p 42. Likewise triggering Second Wind with a CHA check (a watered-down Warlord ability).

To properly balance with Heal, it might be necessary to toy with the DCs, and also to add in an extra consequence - for example, if the attempt fails the person granting the action suffers psychic damage, as the failure of their attempt to bolster their fellow undermines their own will to fight on.

 

[ExploderWizard]

I'm curious as to which games you have in mind. But your characterisation of D&D seems to exclude, as elements of the core D&D experience, such 1st ed books as Oriental Adventures and Dragonlance Adventures, huge chunks of 2nd ed (including, for example, all the Ravenloft modules that I know and probably most of the FR ones as well), and 4e. As well as the APs that became popular during the 3E era and remain popular with PF players.

That's a big chunk of people allegedly "taking a hammer" to your traditional game. An alternative reading of the situation would be that your approach to the game is only one of several that a unity edition might accommodate.

I ran a sandbox 4E campaign for about a year. It can be done, but it took a lot of work. I would like the core game to be something that can accomplish this without requiring extra work. Additional modules can add whatever extra functionality and options that other styles find useful.

Its easier to snap on additional options than to gut the core and patch whats left.

 

[pemerton]

I ran a sandbox 4E campaign for about a year. It can be done, but it took a lot of work. I would like the core game to be something that can accomplish this without requiring extra work. Additional modules can add whatever extra functionality and options that other styles find useful.

Its easier to snap on additional options than to gut the core and patch whats left.

By this token, though, I can say "I would like the core game to be something that can support PC-in-situation-focused, player-driven, non-railroad play without requiring extra work, and additional modules can be added on to create the extra functionality (such as, say, lingering wounds or world building or resource tracking) that sandbox style players find useful."

And the 2nd ed afficionado can say "I would like the core game to be something that can support GM-driven, plot-oriented play without requiring extra work, and additional moduels can be added on to create the extra functionality (such as, say, a random chance of PC death) that sandbox style players find useful)."

The notion that the mechanics that support sandbox play are some sort of minimal core, and that everyone else is patching stuff onto that, is a myth. Sandboxing brings with it mechanics that are a burden on 2nd ed-style play (hence the injunction in the rulebooks that GMs should ignore or override the mechanics at will) and on the sort of play that I like (and happily for me 4e lacks them).

A unity edition, I would have thought, will recognise that D&D has, for 30 or more years, been used by a range of players for a range of play experiences, and will aim for core mechanics that can - with the appropriate modules added on - support all those styles. If the core is build under the assumption that just one of those styles captures the essence of D&D, I think the unity goal will fail.

I think it would be particularly silly to design the game under the assumption that sandboxin with a modest-to-high risk of PC death is essential, given that WotC is trying to win back PF players, and PF players play a truck load of APs, and APs pretty much depend on PC death being kept to a minimum.

 

[Ahnehnois]

Having characters die has two effects, both very bad IMO.

* The characters stop being heroic. At any hint of risk, they seek the slow, safe options. 15-minute adventuring days and taking 2 minutes to do Take 20 on every square of the dungeon fits this style. if the DM tries to stress them, they simply balk, back off, and look for another scenario.

* The players begin to think of their characters as playing pieces, not worth the risk of investing emotionally in. Things like background story and personality takes second place to "build" and fun maneuvers in combat. Death becomes just another chance to try out a new build.

When some players go down the first route and some down the other, play really starts to disintegrate.

Okay, but here's the other side:

If characters never die...

*The characters stop being heroic. Feeling invincible, they set absurd goals with no regard for risk. Absent consequences, they turn into rampaging murderous psychopaths.

*The players begin to think of their characters as playing pieces, not relatable or human enough to invest in emotionally. Mortality is kind of a defining characteristic for human beings.

***

Don't get me wrong; I've observed the "turtling" phenomenon and I've definitely seen problems when the death toll goes too high, but it's important to have stakes. If the outcome of a battle isn't in doubt, why fight it?

 

[I'm A Banana]

This kind of falls in the "wrong question" category.

It's a playstyle thing. One answer isn't going to work for everyone. A narrative-heavy storytelling game might appreciate failure, but character death is going to be off the table for them. Meanwhile, a more open-world style game is going to want actual death on the table (though, depending on how complicated making a character is, they might not functionally WANT to die that often).

Common death with common resurrection is basically the same thing as rare death with rare resurrection which is basically the same thing as no real death, which is just fine, but isn't exactly the same as regular, permanent death.

Both options should be in the game.

One sort of "middle ground" option I tend to like in my games is a Death Flag (e.g.: The player determines when death is something they're willing to risk), but that's a more story-focused thing.