D&D 5E Not dying?

[uzirath]

So the PCs can't die unless they want to, but it's perfectly fine for any NPC to die without consent, and you're blaming the players for not treating the NPCs like people? Do you not see the problem with that?

I've never seen it work that way. In my experience, players who think of NPCs as expendable cannon fodder are just as likely in lethal and non-lethal games. Some players just aren't that interested in the in-game narrative. I've even had players like that in my non-lethal games. It's not a problem as long as they don't piss all over the story for everyone else. With that said, though, I've definitely had skeptical players join one of our non-lethal campaigns and then fully buy-in despite their skepticism. Losing (or failing) a beloved NPC hurts, sometimes more than losing your own character.

As I suggested earlier, most consumers of fiction don't seem to have trouble engaging emotionally with narratives even when they know that the protagonists are likely to survive. Indeed, most bestselling fiction (whether film or novels) is far more predictable than the epic-but-not-especially-lethal D&D campaigns I've run. Sure the PCs are likely to survive, but the plot is dynamic because each session is subject to the actions of multiple personalities and the ever fickle dice. A big part of the fun for the players is trying to figure out a way to achieve their goals despite the ever changing plot knots they create.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

I...I'm not sure I do, but I'm also not sure I fully understand your objection. Do you mind explaining further?

You're treating NPCs like they're second-class citizens, by not giving them the same basic considerations that you give to the PCs. It's unreasonable to blame the players for not caring about the NPCs, and whether they live or die, when the underlying reason for why they are allowed to die is just because they're NPCs.

I'm reminded of why I stopped playing 4E, and switched to Pathfinder, back in 2009 or so. I was one of the players, and we were supposed to rescue some dwarven NPCs from a mine, where they were being kept as slave labor by drow. We managed to free them, but on our way out of the mine, we were attacked. One of the drow cast an area-effect magic web spell on the entire party, which was something like difficult terrain coupled with little spiders that bit for ~3 damage every round. Of course, this was enough to utterly and irrevocably murder every single one of the dwarves we were in the process of rescuing, because they were inexplicably being modeled as minions. That's when I gave up on 4E, because I didn't feel bad about failing to protect these people; I felt betrayed by the system, for making me think of them as people at all, when they were never anything more than plot points.

It's the same thing, in your example. When the peasants are murdered by gnolls, it's not the players' or the PCs' fault that they died. It's not the peasants' fault, or even the gnolls' fault really. The only real blame lies in the system, choosing to model them as plot points rather than as people.

 

[ExploderWizard]

Many players will find a game where they know they won't die not terribly compelling. I personally know many players who would find the "[almost omni-present] risk of individual death" to be incredibly stressful, and not conducive to having a good time. For the first camp (the players who would find no-death games incredibly dull), when I'm upfront about how I handle character death, it allows them to either opt into lethal play, or find a game that better suits their interests. (I know many DMs who run games that they would like much better, and I would refer them. Not just drop a blunt "my way of the high way, cupcake")

I don't say this to create any kind of value judgement of my approach versus yours, part of what makes this game wonderful is how simple choices of starting premise can create wildly different games to suit different tastes. I'm just trying to explain why I make the choices that I make for my games, and the contexts in which I'm making them.

A can understand playing a game without death being a part of it just not one featuring violence so prominently. I can think of games where the challenges and risks do not involve violence at all, but if combat is a major part of the challenges yet dying is not possible it amounts to pillow fighting.

 

[Lanliss]

A can understand playing a game without death being a part of it just not one featuring violence so prominently. I can think of games where the challenges and risks do not involve violence at all, but if combat is a major part of the challenges yet dying is not possible it amounts to pillow fighting.

If every fight is built around an alternate form of victory (something other than "Kill all the monsters") Then I can't see it being a real issue. As Mira mentioned, you can't come back and try to save the village from Gnolls again.

If you are defending someone, and you all die, that person is dead. Maybe it was an important NPC (Now you have a faction that hates you), maybe it was a Merchant (Now you can't buy potions/armor), so now your failure has resulted in a considerable loss.

If you are attempting to reach something before the Terrible Ritual happens, and you all "die", then the Terrible Ritual happens, and demons are unleashed upon the world.

There is nothing "pillow fight-y" about it, if there are actual losses as a result of losing. That sounds way worse, and more compelling, than "Everyone dies, roll new characters". Assuming one is invested in the world anyway, and cares about the NPCs and cities full of defenseless commoners.

 

[ExploderWizard]

If every fight is built around an alternate form of victory (something other than "Kill all the monsters") Then I can't see it being a real issue. As Mira mentioned, you can't come back and try to save the village from Gnolls again.

If you are defending someone, and you all die, that person is dead. Maybe it was an important NPC (Now you have a faction that hates you), maybe it was a Merchant (Now you can't buy potions/armor), so now your failure has resulted in a considerable loss.

If you are attempting to reach something before the Terrible Ritual happens, and you all "die", then the Terrible Ritual happens, and demons are unleashed upon the world.

There is nothing "pillow fight-y" about it, if there are actual losses as a result of losing. That sounds way worse, and more compelling, than "Everyone dies, roll new characters". Assuming one is invested in the world anyway, and cares about the NPCs and cities full of defenseless commoners.

So if the PCs decide they want to explore, and collect loot to become rich and powerful, and say to hell with "the narrative" (whatever that is), I suppose being invulnerable would come in pretty handy.

 

[Gradine]

So if the PCs decide they want to explore, and collect loot to become rich and powerful, and say to hell with "the narrative" (whatever that is), I suppose being invulnerable would come in pretty handy.

You are talking about two entirely different types of campaigns with two entirely different sets of expectations, player motivations, and aesthetic building blocks. If the players at any point say to hell with "the narrative" when "the narrative" is the only thing driving the aversion to PC death, why in Dol Arrah's name would you expect the same rules to apply?

 

[Lanliss]

So if the PCs decide they want to explore, and collect loot to become rich and powerful, and say to hell with "the narrative" (whatever that is), I suppose being invulnerable would come in pretty handy.

I was going to respond, but Gradine covered it better than I can.

 

[Huntsman57]

Many players will find a game where they know they won't die not terribly compelling. I personally know many players who would find the "[almost omni-present] risk of individual death" to be incredibly stressful, and not conducive to having a good time. For the first camp (the players who would find no-death games incredibly dull), when I'm upfront about how I handle character death, it allows them to either opt into lethal play, or find a game that better suits their interests. (I know many DMs who run games that they would like much better, and I would refer them. Not just drop a blunt "my way of the high way, cupcake")

I don't say this to create any kind of value judgement of my approach versus yours, part of what makes this game wonderful is how simple choices of starting premise can create wildly different games to suit different tastes. I'm just trying to explain why I make the choices that I make for my games, and the contexts in which I'm making them.

Doesn't sound like we'd handle things different. If a new player joins the game they are made aware of how the game plays. I have very different death and dying rules than vanilla 5E, and the players will very quickly understand what they're getting into, and can decide if it's for them. My existing players, some of whom have been with me for decades, would find a no risk game incredibly dull, so I wouldn't be able to change my game to accommodate one new player of course, but it doesn't sound like that's what you were suggesting.

 

[Arilyn]

I'm going to take it in good faith that you aren't trolling, and are simply curious as to how I could possibly create interesting challenges for my players with this as a starting premise for my game.

Winning is not an eventuality, surviving is. This means players have to live with the consequences of their failures. It's not a 'respawn at the last checkpoint' mechanic, these combat encounters are frequently not things that can be attempted repeatedly, and if they are, they will not be the same the second time around. You don't get a second chance at defending a village from gnolls, even if you know that your character will come to hours later in the smouldering ruin of the town square. You could probably manage a second attempt at an assassination, but the second will happen in an entirely different set of circumstances than first. All the while, that first failed assassination attempt is causing far-reaching political consequences for the rest of the realm.

Like, I get where you are coming from, but the concerns you raise are only going to be a problem if you are sitting down to play with players who refuse to emotionally engage with the narrative world, refuse to treat NPCs like people, or refuse to consider anything but their character's ability to survive in a very basic way.

Couldn't agree more. The smouldering ruins of a village brings real guilt to the player characters. If the characters die, the players can shrug, make new characters and move on.

Death is very disruptive to the story. It's especially bad, if a group is working together really well, and have built up all kinds of inter-group dynamics. When someone dies, it can be hard to insert a new character. Look what happens to a lot of tv shows when a character is lost. I have played for many years with a GM who only very very rarely kills characters. I have not lost a character in any of his campaigns. Believe me, it is not dull. There is a lot of intensity and suspense. I do not feel safe and protected. There are so many worse things he does to us than kill us...

Having too much death can actually kill suspense. It can lead to players doing dumb, suicidal things, because it all so meaningless anyway. You can always roll up a new one.

 

[Warmaster Horus]

I was referring to players arguing if a GM says "You fail morale and run away". I certainly don't expect players to argue about NPC morale.

Ahhh. Well I would certainly never make players make a standard morale check, character agency and all that.