D&D 5E [+] Questions for zero character death players and DMs…

[Charlaquin]

Can be, but... I don't recommend it.

Back when I followed such things, there was a sub-school of nordic larp that used a "three day rule", which can be summarized as: "Any physical harm that you cause to another player that doesn't send them to the hospital, and largely heals in three days or less is fair game." So, if you want to grab another player and actually bang their head against the table, that's okay, just to long as you don't actually break their nose. If they are limping for two days after you session, that's okay. And so on.

I find this irresponsible.

Causing trauma to the player, rather than the character, in service to the game is... not cool. That stops being a game, in the sense that it is no longer "play".

Yeah, that’s definitely irresponsible. Nobody’s doing that in any D&D game I’ve ever played.

 

[Vaalingrade]

Can be, but... I don't recommend it.

Back when I followed such things, there was a sub-school of nordic larp that used a "three day rule", which can be summarized as: "Any physical harm that you cause to another player that doesn't send them to the hospital, and largely heals in three days or less is fair game." So, if you want to grab another player and actually bang their head against the table, that's okay, just to long as you don't actually break their nose. If they are limping for two days after you session, that's okay. And so on.

I find this irresponsible.

Causing trauma to the player, rather than the character, in service to the game is... not cool. That stops being a game, in the sense that it is no longer "play".

My college roommate did this.

Swore by it... right up until he lost a tooth.= from some dude just straight up punching him in the face as part of a scene.

 

[Umbran]

Can your character be lost instantly to fickle dice rolls though? The outcomes are the results of whole series of decisions you’ve made.

So, have you watched The Good Place?

In that show, as part of an exploration of ethics, they note that there comes a point where the path between a choice, and the outcome of that choice, is too obscured, or becomes too convoluted, or too diluted for a person to follow, such that it is not reasonable or fair to attach the consequences to the choice.

There's examples of this in animal training techniques that fail. If you have a dog, and it poops on the carpet, and you come home hours later, shout at the dog, rub your dog's nose in it and smack the dog with a rolled up newspaper, the dog WILL NOT associate the action of it pooping with the negative consequences it experiences hours later. The dog will learn to fear you, but won't get why you are angry with it - the causal link between action and consequence is lost in the intervening time.

There is also the matter that one event being required for another to happen does not make the second caused by the first, or non-random. If I remain indoors, a tree branch cannot fall on my head. However, if a tree branch falls on my head, you don't scold me with, "Well, you chose to go outside, so that's on you!*.

This is borne out in our legal systems and assignment of responsibility. We have a special category for things classified as "acts of God", responsibility for which cannot be attached to a person or their choices.

 

[Umbran]

Yeah, that’s definitely irresponsible. Nobody’s doing that in any D&D game I’ve ever played.

I should hope not.

But, using the real-world pain of loss to enhance your game experience is not particularly different from using a player's physical pain to enhance a game. In some ways, trauma is trauma - we should not say using physical damage is off limits, but psychological pain is fair game.

 

[FrozenNorth]

So, have you watched The Good Place?

In that show, as part of an exploration of ethics, they note that there comes a point where the path between a choice, and the outcome of that choice, is too obscured, or becomes too convoluted, or too diluted for a person to follow, such that it is not reasonable or fair to attach the consequences to the choice.

That is fair, and The Good Place is a great series.

There is also the matter that one event being required for another to happen does not make the second caused by the first, or non-random. If I remain indoors, a tree branch cannot fall on my head. However, if a tree branch falls on my head, you don't scold me with, "Well, you chose to go outside, so that's on you!*.

@Charlaquin has been clear that she is not scolding anyone.

To go back to “The Good Place” analogy, it is clear that there are myriad causal factors that lead to every outcome. The issue isn’t ignoring that randomness played a roll, the issue is ignoring all other factors except randomness.

 

[Charlaquin]

So, have you watched The Good Place?

In that show, as part of an exploration of ethics, they note that there comes a point where the path between a choice, and the outcome of that choice, is too obscured, or becomes too convoluted, or too diluted for a person to follow, such that it is not reasonable or fair to attach the consequences to the choice.

There's examples of this in animal training techniques that fail. If you have a dog, and it poops on the carpet, and you come home hours later, shout at the dog, rub your dog's nose in it and smack the dog with a rolled up newspaper, the dog WILL NOT associate the action of it pooping with the negative consequences it experiences hours later. The dog will learn to fear you, but won't get why you are angry with it - the causal link between action and consequence is lost in the intervening time.

There is also the matter that one event being required for another to happen does not make the second caused by the first, or non-random. If I remain indoors, a tree branch cannot fall on my head. However, if a tree branch falls on my head, you don't scold me with, "Well, you chose to go outside, so that's on you!*.

This is borne out in our legal systems and assignment of responsibility. We have a special category for things classified as "acts of God", responsibility for which cannot be attached to a person or their choices.

Great, but you’re still talking about whether or not a punishment is justified for an action. Character death is not a punishment. Causality doesn’t care if it’s reasonable or fair for an effect to follow a cause.

 

[Charlaquin]

I should hope not.

But, using the real-world pain of loss to enhance your game experience is not particularly different from using a player's physical pain to enhance a game. In some ways, trauma is trauma - we should not say using physical damage is off limits, but psychological pain is fair game.

Sure, traumatizing your players is bad, and if someone you’re playing with finds character death traumatic, it’s probably better to establish some kind of safety tools to avoid triggering that trauma. A “your character can only die with your permission” rule is one possible such tool. In general though, character death is a mere proxy for actual loss of life. An abstraction, like most game mechanics.

 

[overgeeked]

Can be, but... I don't recommend it.

Back when I followed such things, there was a sub-school of nordic larp that used a "three day rule", which can be summarized as: "Any physical harm that you cause to another player that doesn't send them to the hospital, and largely heals in three days or less is fair game." So, if you want to grab another player and actually bang their head against the table, that's okay, just to long as you don't actually break their nose. If they are limping for two days after you session, that's okay. And so on.

I find this irresponsible.

Causing trauma to the player, rather than the character, in service to the game is... not cool. That stops being a game, in the sense that it is no longer "play".

While I agree with you, there are large swathes of horror players and referees who would disagree with you. Not necessarily about the physical violence, but in regards to…trauma, for lack of a better word in the moment. There are quite a few horror gamers who seem to think it’s not only perfectly fine but actually necessary and the entire point of horror gaming for the referee to intentionally go out of there way to scare, make uncomfortable, and gross out the players at the table. Including using lines and veils with the specific intent to violate them. It’s one of the reasons I’ve largely walked away from horror gaming. I have no interest in that style of play from either side of the screen and it seems to be taking over horror gaming.

 

[Baron Opal II]

There is also the matter that one event being required for another to happen does not make the second caused by the first, or non-random. If I remain indoors, a tree branch cannot fall on my head. However, if a tree branch falls on my head, you don't scold me with, "Well, you chose to go outside, so that's on you!*.

This is borne out in our legal systems and assignment of responsibility. We have a special category for things classified as "acts of God", responsibility for which cannot be attached to a person or their choices.

Elm, she hates mankind and waits, 'til every gust be laid
To drop a limb on the head of him that anyway trusts her shade
But whether a lad be sober or sad, or mellow with ale from the horn
He'll take no wrong when he lyeth along 'neath Oak, and Ash, and Thorn

But, yes, your point is valid.

 

[JiffyPopTart]

Great, but you’re still talking about whether or not a punishment is justified for an action. Character death is not a punishment. Causality doesn’t care if it’s reasonable or fair for an effect to follow a cause.

Maybe a better middle ground can be had by looking at this with a different term....fault...instead of punishment. Your stance seems to be saying more often than not a character death is the players fault. This is where I think most people are disagreeing with you.

When people say "random" death they are referring to a character death in which they did not feel themselves as players nor the actions of their character were at the level of being at fault.

When my storm sorcerer died at the hands of three duregar because I charged them in melee hoping to somehow hold them back while innocents escaped..that was my fault. I fully regconized and acknowledged what I was doing was risky and potentially deadly. That death is on me.

When my rogue died to a hallway trap I failed to notice when I searched...that's not my fault. I had a character built specifically to find traps. They failed a skill check followed by a save. At some point the fault slides to the side of bad luck, or even the GM for I clouding a trap that can one shot a PC in an adventure set before them.

The final bit is about "you chose to go there or fight monster" as an argument for fault. I can't speak for your table... but going on the adventure the GM has prepared for the evening is kind of how it works at my table. If Mission Guy X hands us a map to the abandoned mines with tales of gold ... then the party is going to the abandoned mines that night. Whatever is in there is in there and we expect it's a challenge appropriate for our abilities. There really isn't an option to not go there unless we just want to not play DnD that night.