Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
The
VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX
is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
Re-thinking PC death and storytelling
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Man in the Funny Hat" data-source="post: 5811141" data-attributes="member: 32740"><p>Yes, having "whatever" happen and still be cool and make a good story is a fine goal but the more recent versions of D&D don't do well at accomplishing this. If you drop a lot of the "extraneous" combats then there's too little combat and no buildup to the face-off with the BBEG. If you make changes to keep the PC's safe and alive through any and all <em>little</em> combats all you do is make them nigh invincible for the big combats. If you orient your game around ensuring that the story takes precedence over the inevitable intrusion of random dice events that spoil it then, as you say, you walk the line of either letting the PC's see the railroading or killing a good story - and NEITHER is particularly enjoyable.</p><p> </p><p>Plot immunity is not only not required it is obvious railroading. What is required is <em>player</em> acceptance of the fact that random deaths are inevitable and that their occurrence cannot be controlled by the DM without it becoming immediately and annoyingly obvious.</p><p> </p><p>D&D is not a "storytelling" RPG as such. The intent (IMO) was originally to give the DM PERMISSION to violate the rules on occasion so that some plots and stories can be preserved, PC's and NPC's can be saved or killed by exceeding or arbitrarily restricting the rules. If you build INTO the rules the manifest precedence of story over mechanics then you see the rails.</p><p> </p><p></p><p> </p><p>Going to toot my own horn here and brag that I saw the error of this dynamic VERY soon after 3E was released. It is a key flaw in 3rd Edition rules and it is something that WotC designers themselves seemed to fail to see and appreciate even though they intentionally built it into the system.</p><p> </p><p>By making PC rescources a finite quantity and engineering the math so that PC death becomes very predictable you have simultaneously FORCED upon your game a pattern of play. You only get X number of encounters before you either have to BUILD INTO the adventure the ability to rest and recover at <em>regular</em> intervals or have the ability to make them happen off the cuff as needed. WotC needed to be making shorter adventures, or adventures connected in smaller system-swallowable parts but instead the trend became mega-dungeons which fly in the face of how the mechanics of the system seem to have been designed to function.</p><p> </p><p>This has applied to every version of D&D. Don't hang your campaigns successful conclusion on the life and death of any one given PC because you CANNOT reliably control when and how any given character will die without it eventually becoming obvious what you're doing. You similarly should not hang the conclusion of any adventure upon the life and death of one NPC or monster because you cannot guarantee success by the PC's without the invisible strings of your puppeteering eventually being seen.</p><p> </p><p>If you're going to let the chips fall then they have to fall with the accompanying acceptance of UNDESIRABLE consequences - PC death, storyline interruptions, etc. If you forbid the undesirable consequences then you accept that it will become obvious that you're catching the chips on the way down.</p><p> </p><p>1E DMG may not say specifically to do it this way but the suggestion sure seems to be that PC's will be doing a LOT of independent activity and it may even occasionally become an issue as to how to get the PC's all in one place at one time to begin a new adventure together. Researching spells, gathering information, training time to level up (!), running or participating in a guild or religious hierarchy, personal quests to accomplish personal goals, builing or planning for a shift in activities upon reaching title level (!), investigating plot hooks to see if they pan out rather than just accepting that the DM will PRESENT you with the next obvious plot hook in his planned chain of events.</p><p> </p><p>I really do think the game used to be run rather differently before someone decided that PC's should always be together, doing the same things in the same places and advancing at the same rates.</p><p> </p><p> </p><p>Before 3E came along (but more in 1E than 2E) it was my experience that players wound up running several different characters and even operating in seperate parties in order to retain direct participation when the game focus shifted here and there. Frequently they would even be "henchmen" of one or more PC's.</p><p> </p><p>We had an unwritten rule that players should try to only run one PC at a time (even if they had to invent excuses to leave another PC out of an adventure), and that two was the limit. But then there were special occasions when every available PC, henchman and hireling was freely brought to bear on some grand and glorious combat or quest and that was fun too. It was NOT just "4's company, more's a crowd" that 3E and later tried to ENGINEER into the system. The game was quite capable of accomodating whatever level of participation that your game group could throw at it.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Man in the Funny Hat, post: 5811141, member: 32740"] Yes, having "whatever" happen and still be cool and make a good story is a fine goal but the more recent versions of D&D don't do well at accomplishing this. If you drop a lot of the "extraneous" combats then there's too little combat and no buildup to the face-off with the BBEG. If you make changes to keep the PC's safe and alive through any and all [I]little[/I] combats all you do is make them nigh invincible for the big combats. If you orient your game around ensuring that the story takes precedence over the inevitable intrusion of random dice events that spoil it then, as you say, you walk the line of either letting the PC's see the railroading or killing a good story - and NEITHER is particularly enjoyable. Plot immunity is not only not required it is obvious railroading. What is required is [I]player[/I] acceptance of the fact that random deaths are inevitable and that their occurrence cannot be controlled by the DM without it becoming immediately and annoyingly obvious. D&D is not a "storytelling" RPG as such. The intent (IMO) was originally to give the DM PERMISSION to violate the rules on occasion so that some plots and stories can be preserved, PC's and NPC's can be saved or killed by exceeding or arbitrarily restricting the rules. If you build INTO the rules the manifest precedence of story over mechanics then you see the rails. Going to toot my own horn here and brag that I saw the error of this dynamic VERY soon after 3E was released. It is a key flaw in 3rd Edition rules and it is something that WotC designers themselves seemed to fail to see and appreciate even though they intentionally built it into the system. By making PC rescources a finite quantity and engineering the math so that PC death becomes very predictable you have simultaneously FORCED upon your game a pattern of play. You only get X number of encounters before you either have to BUILD INTO the adventure the ability to rest and recover at [I]regular[/I] intervals or have the ability to make them happen off the cuff as needed. WotC needed to be making shorter adventures, or adventures connected in smaller system-swallowable parts but instead the trend became mega-dungeons which fly in the face of how the mechanics of the system seem to have been designed to function. This has applied to every version of D&D. Don't hang your campaigns successful conclusion on the life and death of any one given PC because you CANNOT reliably control when and how any given character will die without it eventually becoming obvious what you're doing. You similarly should not hang the conclusion of any adventure upon the life and death of one NPC or monster because you cannot guarantee success by the PC's without the invisible strings of your puppeteering eventually being seen. If you're going to let the chips fall then they have to fall with the accompanying acceptance of UNDESIRABLE consequences - PC death, storyline interruptions, etc. If you forbid the undesirable consequences then you accept that it will become obvious that you're catching the chips on the way down. 1E DMG may not say specifically to do it this way but the suggestion sure seems to be that PC's will be doing a LOT of independent activity and it may even occasionally become an issue as to how to get the PC's all in one place at one time to begin a new adventure together. Researching spells, gathering information, training time to level up (!), running or participating in a guild or religious hierarchy, personal quests to accomplish personal goals, builing or planning for a shift in activities upon reaching title level (!), investigating plot hooks to see if they pan out rather than just accepting that the DM will PRESENT you with the next obvious plot hook in his planned chain of events. I really do think the game used to be run rather differently before someone decided that PC's should always be together, doing the same things in the same places and advancing at the same rates. Before 3E came along (but more in 1E than 2E) it was my experience that players wound up running several different characters and even operating in seperate parties in order to retain direct participation when the game focus shifted here and there. Frequently they would even be "henchmen" of one or more PC's. We had an unwritten rule that players should try to only run one PC at a time (even if they had to invent excuses to leave another PC out of an adventure), and that two was the limit. But then there were special occasions when every available PC, henchman and hireling was freely brought to bear on some grand and glorious combat or quest and that was fun too. It was NOT just "4's company, more's a crowd" that 3E and later tried to ENGINEER into the system. The game was quite capable of accomodating whatever level of participation that your game group could throw at it. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
Re-thinking PC death and storytelling
Top