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

[Umbran]

While I agree with you, there are large swathes of horror players and referees who would disagree with you.

Well, I started this noting that a bunch of Nordic Larpers disagreed with me as well. Disagreement is not surprising.

Including using lines and veils with the specific intent to violate them.

Okay, that's worse. With the Nordic Larpers, the "three day rule" was not a surprise - everyone agreed to it going in. Misleading the players about the safety of the situation is betrayal of trust, and that's a problem

 

[Charlaquin]

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.

I don’t think I’ve been saying “fault”, have I?

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.

Fault implies blame, which I don’t think is an accurate way to look at it. The death was a result of a series of choices you made and calculated risks you took, which yes, means chance played a role, but a secondary role to your choices. That’s a good thing. That’s how agency works.

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.

Again, I don’t think “fault” is the right way to look at it. But it was certainly a result of your decisions and calculated risks. The only difference I see between this and the following example is that you calculated your risk as significantly higher than in the following example, but still elected to take it. Perhaps you were better prepared for the possibility of death because you had a made a more accurate assessment of the risk?

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.

But you know that ability checks and saving throws can fail, and that such failure can have consequences. Ideally you should know how likely you are to succeed or to fail, and what the consequences are likely to be (this is admittedly not always the case though, which is why I always tell the players the DCs and any consequences for failure that their characters could reasonably anticipate). If your character was at low health, or if the DM telegraphed the trap as being potentially deadly, you should at least have been able to anticipate that death was a possible outcome. So, the death was still a result of your informed decision to try to disarm the trap. Maybe not the most likely result, but… that’s how push-your-luck games work. You know that your luck will run out eventually, and part of the challenge is in deciding when it’s time to call it in.

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.

Sounds like you play in more event-based adventures rather than location-based ones. I definitely think that unexpected death being off the table makes more sense in event-based games, though there is a place for unexpected death being on the table in event-based adventures too (though not in all of them).

 

[Umbran]

Great, but you’re still talking about whether or not a punishment is justified for an action.

Whether it is "punishment" or not isn't the relevant bit. Whether the character is responsible for the resulting events is.

Character death is not a punishment.

That... is not a universal sentiment. Especially when the GM is... not empathic about the impact of the loss.

Causality doesn’t care if it’s reasonable or fair for an effect to follow a cause.

Responsibility does. And people's feelings are not generally based on cause, but on perception of responsibility. When you say, "Your own choices led to the death," that's not talking about causality, it is talking about responsibility or culpability.

 

[Charlaquin]

Whether it is "punishment" or not isn't the relevant bit. Whether the character is responsible for the resulting events is.

I’d say it’s pretty relevant, given that the claim I was arguing against was “character death is a punishment for playing wrong.”

That... is not a universal sentiment. Especially when the GM is... not empathic about the impact of the loss.

Sure, bad DMs are bad. Not every DM who leaves the possibility of unexpected character death on the table is a bad DM.

Responsibility does. And people's feelings are not generally based on cause, but on perception of responsibility. When you say, "Your own choices led to the death," that's not talking about causality, it is talking about responsibility or culpability.

It absolutely is talking about causality. Your choices and calculated risks did lead to your character death. Cause -> effect. Though, it has been my experience that most players want to feel responsible for the results of their choices. At least they do when the results are positive. But you can’t have it both ways. If you’re responsible for your successes, you’re also responsible for your failures.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

But you can’t have it both ways. If you’re responsible for your successes, you’re also responsible for your failures.

Isn't this sentiment, right here, the thing you were saying wasn't present earlier? "You're...responsible for your failures." That's a fancy way of saying, "You're responsible when you fail." To be clear, I know you aren't saying a person is only responsible when they fail. But there's this rather major emphasis on "you failed" and away from any possible "this was just a bad situation that couldn't have been helped." In fact, it has certain shades of the fundamental attribution error.

 

[FrozenNorth]

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.

Is this an actual example or a hypothetical? Where was the rest of the party?

Which points to a distinction that hasn’t really been discussed: the actions of the other members of the party.

Say for the sake of argument that your character takes a hit and drops. Your party figures that the priority is finishing the combat, rather than healing you. On round 2 of death saves, you roll a 1 (5% chance) and die.

I would feel uncomfortable saying that the character’s death was “your fault” in that instance. However, I would also feel uncomfortable saying the death was “random”. The character’s death was the result of the actions of the other players. Perhaps they were justified in taking the risk, perhaps not.

 

[Charlaquin]

Isn't this sentiment, right here, the thing you were saying wasn't present earlier? "You're...responsible for your failures." That's a fancy way of saying, "You're responsible when you fail."

You are responsible when you fail. You are also responsible when you succeed. That doesn’t mean the results of failure are a punishment, nor the results of success a reward.

To be clear, I know you aren't saying a person is only responsible when they fail. But there's this rather major emphasis on "you failed" and away from any possible "this was just a bad situation that couldn't have been helped."

Well, yes, I have been arguing against the claim that character death is used as a punishment, so naturally the conversation is going to have an emphasis on cases where the PC fails. But the statement carried equal emphasis on both failure and success. To be responsible for one, you must be responsible for the other, and I don’t know about you, but when I play D&D, I want to be responsible for the results of my actions. I want agency, and with agency comes responsibility.

In fact, it has certain shades of the fundamental attribution error.

What fundamental attribution error would that be?

 

[EzekielRaiden]

You are responsible when you fail. You are also responsible when you succeed. That doesn’t mean the results of failure are a punishment, nor the results of success a reward.

When we play a game, that's exactly what they are though. One of the differences between real life and a designed game.

Well, yes, I have been arguing against the claim that character death is used as a punishment, so naturally the conversation is going to have an emphasis on cases where the PC fails. But the statement carried equal emphasis on both failure and success. To be responsible for one, you must be responsible for the other, and I don’t know about you, but when I play D&D, I want to be responsible for the results of my actions. I want agency, and with agency comes responsibility.

What fundamental attribution error would that be?

The fundamental attribution error is a concept from psychology and sociology, where people emphasize the personal qualities in others when others err, but emphasize the situation and context when they personally err. The classic example used nearly everywhere is that if someone else shows up late to work, most people (and I really do mean most--this is extremely widespread) will judge that person as being slovenly, rude, or insufficiently dedicated/serious. However, when the person themselves is the one showing up late, it's almost exclusively the situation, e.g. noting especially bad traffic, problems with office supplies or equipment, being misinformed about the location, etc.

This obviously isn't exactly the same. But there's a very strong element of "circumstance is irrelevant, the only relevant factor is what you chose to do." That's not a particularly accurate or productive model for talking about decision-making. Situation matters significantly more than you give credit for.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Reading through this thread, I've had another thought, mostly tied around that Chess analogy.

See, losing a pawn is an expected part of play. I agree with that. But why did you lose the pawn? Because another player took your pawn. Your loss was their success. You can never lose a piece in chess or territory in Risk without it being because another player succeeded.

Now, how do we refer to DMs? Are they another player who is in conflict with you? No, we actually refer to them as Referee's. This comes from sport's, so let us look at sports. Since we were using pawns and losing territory for board games, let's use scoring points for Sports. If a team loses a point, why did that happen? Because the other team scored a point. If the team is the player, then it is exactly what the situation was for the board game. Your loss was someone else's success. The Referee never scores a point in the game.

And this is why I think the analogy falls apart so hard. Because a character's death is a loss for the player, it is a loss for the party... and it is a loss for the DM. It is never a success for the DM to kill a person's character, excepting in the most extreme circumstances. When I DM, it is bad for me when a player's character dies. It harms the story I am telling. I had plans for that character. I had challenges I wanted them to face.

So the loss is no one's gain. No one got closer to victory with the death of the character... why not put it off until it IS a gain. Why not put it off until we all can agree that this scores a point and is fine?

 

[Charlaquin]

When we play a game, that's exactly what they are though. One of the differences between real life and a designed game.

Maybe they are when you play a game. They definitely aren’t when I do; at least not when I play D&D. The point is to make decisions as you imagine your character would do and find out what happens as a result, with the overarching goal of the results leading to exciting, memorable stories. Sometimes those stories are about tremendous victories, sometimes they’re about crushing defeats. Neither is punishment or reward for playing right or wrong, they’re all just stories.

The fundamental attribution error is a concept from psychology and sociology, where people emphasize the personal qualities in others when others err, but emphasize the situation and context when they personally err. The classic example used nearly everywhere is that if someone else shows up late to work, most people (and I really do mean most--this is extremely widespread) will judge that person as being slovenly, rude, or insufficiently dedicated/serious. However, when the person themselves is the one showing up late, it's almost exclusively the situation, e.g. noting especially bad traffic, problems with office supplies or equipment, being misinformed about the location, etc.

Oh, ok. I’m familiar with the concept, I just didn’t recall the name, probably in part because it doesn’t seem applicable here. In fact, quite the opposite. I am not attributing any qualities to the player. It’s not “you made bad decisions because you’re a bad person and you deserve to lose your character because of it.” It’s “you took a calculated risk, and you’ve got to live with the results.”

This obviously isn't exactly the same. But there's a very strong element of "circumstance is irrelevant, the only relevant factor is what you chose to do." That's not a particularly accurate or productive model for talking about decision-making. Situation matters significantly more than you give credit for.

I’m not discounting situational factors. Situational factors play a huge role in D&D. Putting your character into risky situations is a huge part of the game! Of course that’s going to have a significant impact on the likelihood of a character’s survival. It’s a push-your-luck game, that’s how they work. You do your best to make decisions that will maximize the chances of desirable results and minimize the chances of undesirable results, and then you either take the risk or decide not to. Either way, you have to live with the results you get.

Now, for some folks character death is not tolerable as a possible result, so they take it off the table. And that’s fine! Play however you want to play! But just because a group doesn’t do that, doesn’t mean the DM is trying to use the possibility of character death to punish the players for making the wrong decisions. That’s absurd!