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

[Charlaquin]

I could see that. I really don't see character death has a "restriction". To take the Candyland example, if you take a single piece and play Candyland solo, you will always reach the end of the board. If the entire group of people playing agree to keep playing til everyone reaches the end, everyone will reach the end.

Death to me would be like if there was a card in Candyland that said "remove your piece from the board, wait 20 minutes, then start playing again, turn order may be adjusted." It doesn't change that inevitable end goal of reaching the last space, it just disrupts the game entirely.

The restrictions on the game that me and my players find are the limited toolbox of skills and abilities, and the creativity in overcoming the challenges that the DM has put before us. Plus the variety of self-imposed restrictions from RP.

I mean, there are the cards in Candyland that jump you to the space with the matching symbol, which can actually make you go backwards. It’s not “wait 20 minutes,” but it is negative progress. And Candyland is a very simple game, whereas D&D is a very complex one. But the point is, when we play a game we aren’t really playing to achieve the victory condition; we are playing to struggle against the restrictions the rules place in the way of that victory condition. That’s where the enjoyment comes from. For some people, the risk of character death is part of that. Take it away, and the game loses its value to them, as Candyland would if you could just put your piece anywhere at any time. For others, I suspect they are playing to struggle against different restrictions towards a different objective, to which character death is only an inconvenient nuisance and doesn’t provide value like it does to the other group.

 

[Hussar]

@Charlaquin - I think you are seriously undervaluing the notion of character death as an "inconvenient nuisance".

For my group, when I've done more plot heavy games and taken death off the table, the goal of the game is not "to struggle against the restrictions the rules place in the way of that victory condition". The goal of the game is far more about collaborative story telling. Which doesn't mean that you have constant victory. No, when I took death off the table, the players became far more focused on their characters, adding depth and personality to those characters, because they knew that they wouldn't randomly be forced to make an entirely new character and leave all that work behind.

There's a very good reason that when you get into more narrative based games (sorry for the Forge term) that character death becomes less and less likely. Concerns about "fairness" or that sort of thing go straight out the window. We're not "fair" to our characters. We want to put those characters through as much of a wringer as possible.

As an example, I ran an SF campaign using the (SA) Sufficiently Advanced system some years ago. With SA, the characters are more or less immune to death. It's possible, I suppose, but, extraordinarily unlikely. But, the scenarios we played were all focused on making choices that had very philosophical impacts. For example, one scenario had an invention (a small toy) that definitively proved that the universe is deterministic. The space station where the toy was invented saw mass suicides as people could not take the idea that their choices in the universe had no meaning. The PC's are called in to determine if the toy is actually, in fact, real, and how to stop these suicides. There was no chance of their characters being killed. They could choose to kill their own character, but, no chance of random death.

Yet it was a fascinating scenario. Seeing how the players got into it, dealt with it and then finally resolved the situation was something that I've kept with me for years. Loved it.

So, for me, I've seen what happens when you simply take death on the table, and, IMO, it's almost always been a positive result. I've never seen players take the game less seriously just because they knew their character couldn't die.

 

[Micah Sweet]

@Charlaquin - I think you are seriously undervaluing the notion of character death as an "inconvenient nuisance".

For my group, when I've done more plot heavy games and taken death off the table, the goal of the game is not "to struggle against the restrictions the rules place in the way of that victory condition". The goal of the game is far more about collaborative story telling. Which doesn't mean that you have constant victory. No, when I took death off the table, the players became far more focused on their characters, adding depth and personality to those characters, because they knew that they wouldn't randomly be forced to make an entirely new character and leave all that work behind.

There's a very good reason that when you get into more narrative based games (sorry for the Forge term) that character death becomes less and less likely. Concerns about "fairness" or that sort of thing go straight out the window. We're not "fair" to our characters. We want to put those characters through as much of a wringer as possible.

As an example, I ran an SF campaign using the (SA) Sufficiently Advanced system some years ago. With SA, the characters are more or less immune to death. It's possible, I suppose, but, extraordinarily unlikely. But, the scenarios we played were all focused on making choices that had very philosophical impacts. For example, one scenario had an invention (a small toy) that definitively proved that the universe is deterministic. The space station where the toy was invented saw mass suicides as people could not take the idea that their choices in the universe had no meaning. The PC's are called in to determine if the toy is actually, in fact, real, and how to stop these suicides. There was no chance of their characters being killed. They could choose to kill their own character, but, no chance of random death.

Yet it was a fascinating scenario. Seeing how the players got into it, dealt with it and then finally resolved the situation was something that I've kept with me for years. Loved it.

So, for me, I've seen what happens when you simply take death on the table, and, IMO, it's almost always been a positive result. I've never seen players take the game less seriously just because they knew their character couldn't die.

I have seen that, often, but only in D&D. Other games have other expectations, and I have played and enjoyed them. For some (certainly me) part of D&D being D&D is the risk of character death.

 

[Charlaquin]

@Charlaquin - I think you are seriously undervaluing the notion of character death as an "inconvenient nuisance".

Don’t worry, I understand the degree to which many people despise character death. Don’t mistake my fairly dry way of communicating for under-appreciation of that fact.

For my group, when I've done more plot heavy games and taken death off the table, the goal of the game is not "to struggle against the restrictions the rules place in the way of that victory condition". The goal of the game is far more about collaborative story telling. Which doesn't mean that you have constant victory. No, when I took death off the table, the players became far more focused on their characters, adding depth and personality to those characters, because they knew that they wouldn't randomly be forced to make an entirely new character and leave all that work behind.

There's a very good reason that when you get into more narrative based games (sorry for the Forge term) that character death becomes less and less likely. Concerns about "fairness" or that sort of thing go straight out the window. We're not "fair" to our characters. We want to put those characters through as much of a wringer as possible.

I’m not sure if I’m expressing myself correctly here. What I’m trying to get at here is that the “goal” of a game is meaningless on its own. Let me use a different analogy. Imagine you’re climbing up a mountain and someone comes up in a helicopter and offers you a ride to the top. If you’re climbing it because there’s a rare herb that grows at the top of the mountain that you need to make medicine for your ailing grandmother, you’re naturally going to accept. But if you’re climbing the mountain because you’re a climbing enthusiast and it’s fun for you, you’re going to say no because getting to the top isn’t really the point. The struggle of the climb is what gives value to reaching the top. Games are like the latter case. You have a goal, but the goal itself isn’t meaningful without the struggle to achieve it. That’s what makes it a game.

For me, the struggle to keep the character alive is the climb that makes what I’m doing a game, and taking that off the table is offering the helicopter ride up. I suspect that you are playing a different game than I am. Even though we’re both “playing D&D,” your D&D is a different mountain than mine is. You’ve got different goals with a different part of the rules providing the challenge to achieving them. The removal of character death doesn’t remove the game’s value for you like it does for me, because you’re playing for a different struggle than I am. In fact, because character death is such an inconvenience, your game is improved by its removal.

 

[Hussar]

Don’t worry, I understand the degree to which many people despise character death. Don’t mistake my fairly dry way of communicating for under-appreciation of that fact.

/snip
For me, the struggle to keep the character alive is the climb that makes what I’m doing a game, and taking that off the table is offering the helicopter ride up. I suspect that you are playing a different game than I am. Even though we’re both “playing D&D,” your D&D is a different mountain than mine is. You’ve got different goals with a different part of the rules providing the challenge to achieving them. The removal of character death doesn’t remove the game’s value for you like it does for me, because you’re playing for a different struggle than I am. In fact, because character death is such an inconvenience, your game is improved by its removal.

Note, I play D&D in lots of different ways - sometimes full on meat grinder and sometimes taking death off the table. So, it's not like I have one style that I stick to. It will REALLY depend on the campaign at the time.

I think part of the communication problem we're seeing, and @Micah Sweet hits on it above - is that people play D&D one way and one way only. That "For some (certainly me) part of D&D being D&D is the risk of character death." means that he plays D&D in one fairly specific way.

I think what's going on here is that there are DM's like me in this thread, that adapt D&D to different styles between campaigns. So, we don't see things like character death being "part of D&D" because it's only part of D&D when I want it to be. But, when I don't want it to be, then it's not part of D&D.

Sorry, that's not very clear I don't think, but, I'm having a bit of difficulty expressing my meaning. I've always found the whole "part of D&D being D&D" argument to be very strange because, for me, what is part of D&D changes with every campaign I run or play. In the current game I'm playing as a player, it's very much death off the table and much more about the interactions with the NPC's and delving into the story. In my Candlekeep game, death is on the table, although it hasn't happened (5 full casters, 3 of which have healing makes for a REALLY tough party) yet. Totally different feel. It's episodic rather than serial. However, it would never occur to me to think one is D&D and the other isn't despite sharing virtually nothing than some very basic rules.

 

[Charlaquin]

Note, I play D&D in lots of different ways - sometimes full on meat grinder and sometimes taking death off the table. So, it's not like I have one style that I stick to. It will REALLY depend on the campaign at the time.

I think part of the communication problem we're seeing, and @Micah Sweet hits on it above - is that people play D&D one way and one way only. That "For some (certainly me) part of D&D being D&D is the risk of character death." means that he plays D&D in one fairly specific way.

I think what's going on here is that there are DM's like me in this thread, that adapt D&D to different styles between campaigns. So, we don't see things like character death being "part of D&D" because it's only part of D&D when I want it to be. But, when I don't want it to be, then it's not part of D&D.

Sorry, that's not very clear I don't think, but, I'm having a bit of difficulty expressing my meaning. I've always found the whole "part of D&D being D&D" argument to be very strange because, for me, what is part of D&D changes with every campaign I run or play. In the current game I'm playing as a player, it's very much death off the table and much more about the interactions with the NPC's and delving into the story. In my Candlekeep game, death is on the table, although it hasn't happened (5 full casters, 3 of which have healing makes for a REALLY tough party) yet. Totally different feel. It's episodic rather than serial. However, it would never occur to me to think one is D&D and the other isn't despite sharing virtually nothing than some very basic rules.

Sure. I also play D&D in different ways. As I’ve said many times in this thread, I’ve both played in and run no-death games, and they can be very fun. But I’m trying to identify a difference in play styles, and for the sake of that argument, I’m defaulting to the pro-death position, which is generally how I prefer to play, though I enjoy deathless and low-death games too. Different rules for different campaigns.

 

[overgeeked]

I have seen that, often, but only in D&D. Other games have other expectations, and I have played and enjoyed them. For some (certainly me) part of D&D being D&D is the risk of character death.

It really seems to be a generational and edition thing. I think a large part of it comes down to when you started. I started in ’84 with B/X and AD&D. For me and my first D&D group, it’s character death or nothing. To the point where we’re so tired of 5E being easy mode we’re switching to DCC and starting with a funnel to make up for lost time.

I haven’t heard the referee that giddy talking about a game in a long, long time. He’s very excited that PCs are back on the menu and doesn’t have to worry about balanced encounters, CR, building encounters, etc. Whatever we face, we face. We can fight or run. But there’s no foregone conclusion about the PCs just winning all the time. If we play stupid, our characters die. If we want our characters to live longer, we play smarter. Simple as.

As we’ve aged and had kids and brought them into the hobby with later editions (mostly 4E and 5E), the younger ones in the group are less excited about DCC. They’re not used to old-school grindhouse D&D. They seem to be literally incapable of understanding how character death could be in any way fun. Which is weird because most of them are also into horror.

We’re trying to tell them what to expect and how things are different than they’re used to. In typical kid fashion, they’re not listening.

 

[Maxperson]

That was me. The mixup is in the purpose of the example, I guess. I used it as an example of death sometimes being quite random and as a result unsatisfying.

For me the death itself doesn't need to be satisfying. It's of course more fun to go out in a blaze of glory or self-sacrifice, having chosen the circumstances. For me, though, the major satisfaction I have with the game is in the roleplaying and in doing well at a game where there is risk of death that is outside of my control. Remove that risk of death, and the entire game becomes unsatisfying. Given the choice between having the rare unsatisfying PC death and having the entire game be unsatisfying, well the choice would be easy for me to make.

 

[Maxperson]

I could see that. I really don't see character death has a "restriction". To take the Candyland example, if you take a single piece and play Candyland solo, you will always reach the end of the board. If the entire group of people playing agree to keep playing til everyone reaches the end, everyone will reach the end.

Death to me would be like if there was a card in Candyland that said "remove your piece from the board, wait 20 minutes, then start playing again, turn order may be adjusted." It doesn't change that inevitable end goal of reaching the last space, it just disrupts the game entirely.

The restrictions on the game that me and my players find are the limited toolbox of skills and abilities, and the creativity in overcoming the challenges that the DM has put before us. Plus the variety of self-imposed restrictions from RP.

I agree with you that death is not a restriction. It causes a change in characters, but that's about it. However, the removal of death and a change to make D&D like Candyland where everyone is eventually going to get to the end no matter what, is pointless to me. If we're all going to reach the end no matter what, let's just agree that we got all there and go play something fun(that way is not fun to me). There's no enjoyment for me in getting to the end if there was no real risk of PC death.

I do understand that there are RP restrictions, as well as other ways to lose a challenge or fail a goal. We have those in my game and in games that I play with other DMs. I just want death to be part of it. I have personal goals for each PC I create and the only way I can fail many of them is for that PC to die. So long as death is on the table, achieving those goals means something. Remove death and they no longer do.

That my take on it. Please don't take this post as an attack on you or saying you aren't doing it right. Death or no death is purely a personal choice or group choice and there's no right or wrong answer.

 

[Vaalingrade]

the removal of death and a change to make D&D like Candyland where everyone is eventually going to get to the end no matter what,

That's the kind of thing we don't need in this thread.