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

[Charlaquin]

So, we can probably short circuit this. Maybe, for you, death isn't a punishment. That's cool. But, you obviously cannot speak for everyone. So, how about we don't invalidate the experiences of others who have ether felt that it was, or who have been treated as if it was, by just flat claiming it isn't?

Whether it is, or isn't, is a local phenomenon, not a global one.

This at least feels like a bit of a strawman. I certainly didn't say that every DM who leaves the possibility of unexpected death on the table is a bad DM. While I haven't read every post in the thread, did anyone actually use the phrase "bad DM" except you?

@Vaalingrade claimed, quite a ways back, that DMs who allow character death without the player’s permission, only do so to punish the player for playing wrong. I disagreed with that sentiment, and have been doing nothing but defend the point that no, that isn’t the case. Are there some DMs who do use character death as a punishment? I don’t know, I guess probably. But the idea that that’s the only reason a DM would leave death a possibility is absurd.

 

[Charlaquin]

Not dying seems to require a lot of really boring math and metagaming.

D&D requires math, and metagaming is a label that’s only useful for diminishing certain ways of playing.

 

[Maxperson]

So, what you describe here is punishment by random chance (unintentional punishment) for playing by the assumptions of the character’s class.

Punishment is by definition an intentional penalty for some action. It can't happen unintentionally. A negative consequence can happen unintentionally. Say you're trying to get a grappling hook attached to the top of a cliff and you unintentionally pull down a boulder on your PCs head and he dies. That's not a punishment for trying to get a grappling hook attached. It's simply a negative unintentional consequence to that action.

But when another rogue I played years ago died in one critical hit at level 2 from an ooze type monster, the only decision that lead to it was the choice to adventure, and take the mine job. It was a random death.

Sure. When I played 1e and 2e, I lost lots of low level characters to random death. The ones that made it, though, were ones that I felt MUCH better about. They were exceptional in having survived the proving ground. If none of my characters could have died unless I wanted them to, none of the characters that made it would have felt good at all. There would be no point to feeling good about making it to higher levels when making higher levels is guaranteed.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

I have never said it was for everyone. My point has never been anything more than “Death has a place in some (but not all) character-story driven games” and “character death is not a punishment for players playing wrong.”

I have engaged with you only on two fronts. The first is that it is not accurate (nor useful) to say that death in D&D is never* random, and second that it is neither accurate nor useful to insist on the strictest possible definition of “punishment” as only referring to intentional action by an authoritative body.

Punishment is by definition an intentional penalty for some action.

False. It is a perfectly normal usage to refer to results of a system, regardless of intent, as punishment and reward.

It is a common criticism of system that they punish behaviors they don’t intend to punish.

 

[Charlaquin]

I have engaged with you only on two fronts. The first is that it is not accurate (nor useful) to say that death in D&D is never* random,

Ok, well I don’t claim it’s never random.

and second that it is neither accurate nor useful to insist on the strictest possible definition of “punishment” as only referring to intentional action by an authoritative body.

In the context @Vaalingrade used it, they were very clearly claiming that DMs who allow unexpected (“random,” if you like,) character death only do so as an intentional punitive action for player behaviors they consider wrong. This notion, and only this notion, is what I am arguing against.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Punishment is by definition an intentional penalty for some action. It can't happen unintentionally. A negative consequence can happen unintentionally. Say you're trying to get a grappling hook attached to the top of a cliff and you unintentionally pull down a boulder on your PCs head and he dies. That's not a punishment for trying to get a grappling hook attached. It's simply a negative unintentional consequence to that action.

Sure. When I played 1e and 2e, I lost lots of low level characters to random death. The ones that made it, though, were ones that I felt MUCH better about. They were exceptional in having survived the proving ground. If none of my characters could have died unless I wanted them to, none of the characters that made it would have felt good at all. There would be no point to feeling good about making it to higher levels when making higher levels is guaranteed.

Okay.

The thread isn’t about the merits of random character death via “challenge the player skill” style play, though. I have never claimed anything negative about a style of play I don’t prefer. I just don’t prefer it, and have tried to explain why I prefer what I do, in a thread that is explicitly about that.

 

[Maxperson]

False. It is a perfectly normal usage to refer to results of a system, regardless of intent, as punishment and reward.

It is a common criticism of system that they punish behaviors they don’t intend to punish.

I don't agree that consequence = punishment. If I have my PC go into the Tomb of Horrors and he dies randomly to a death trap, that's not a punishment. It's a consequence of my choice. There's no definition of punishment, other than the informal "how much punishment can his body take" that isn't intentionally done.

If a criticism is that a system punishes certain things, then it must be provable that the system was designed with deliberate intent for those punishments to happen. Otherwise what is happening is that people are misinterpreting things a systemic punishment when what's really happening are negative unintended consequences.

 

[Charlaquin]

Okay.

The thread isn’t about the merits of random character death via “challenge the player skill” style play, though. I have never claimed anything negative about a style of play I don’t prefer. I just don’t prefer it, and have tried to explain why I prefer what I do, in a thread that is explicitly about that.

But yet you’re arguing against my points which have only ever been “unexpected character death can have a place in some character-story driven campaigns,” and “unexpected character death is not always a punishment from the DM for what they consider incorrect player behavior,” both of which I made only in response to claims to the contrary made in this thread.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Ok, well I don’t claim it’s never random.

I’m not going to add this to the list of senseless quibbling over precise wording in this thread. I really wish I knew what is different about this place, compared to other places I frequent. I don’t have any trouble communicating literally anywhere else but here. Idk.

Anyway “[term]*” is, IME, commonly used to indicate that the term is not being used in the strictest or most literal sense.

In the context @Vaalingrade used it, they were very clearly claiming that DMs who allow unexpected (“random,” if you like,) character death only do so as an intentional punitive action for player behaviors they consider wrong. This notion, and only this notion, is what I am arguing against.

And I said very early in our interaction to you that punishment does not require intent. There are several people using the term in this thread, only one of whom has claimed that DMs allow death in order to punish wrong play, and even he seems to have used that claim as a sarcastically hyperbolic rejoiner, as is his habit.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

I don't agree that consequence = punishment. If I have my PC go into the Tomb of Horrors and he dies randomly to a death trap, that's not a punishment. It's a consequence of my choice. There's no definition of punishment, other than the informal "how much punishment can his body take" that isn't intentionally done.

And in psychology, and when criticizing systems and what they punish vs reinforce.

If a criticism is that a system punishes certain things, then it must be provable that the system was designed with deliberate intent for those punishments to happen.

No, that is nonsense.