Should D&D Have an Alternate Death Mechanic?

[Glyfair]

Serious question: If death is not a risk, why roll the dice?

Why not just handwave all the fighting and say, "You meet a bunch of monsters and kill them. The loot you find is..."

Death isn't the only risk in the game. Sometimes in D&D the challenge can be just getting through the door. Maybe you don't die, but you don't save the princess. Maybe because you failed you are no longer welcome in the kingdom. Sometimes you just get thrown in prison.

There are many, many more risks than just life and death. In the real world risk are taken on Wall Street every day, but almost never are they directly life & death risks.

 

[phindar]

I think Death makes a poor default for losing in D&D; a lot of times instead of coming up with consequences for failure we just gamble with the ability to keep playing. Death becomes commonplace, so ways around Death have to be in the system. Raise Dead, Resurrection and so on, and Death becomes more of a temporary setback. At high levels, it gets very Superheroes, with people dying one day and coming back the next. Death in D&D is actually one of the nicer consequences for failure in the system-- players may note with relief: Well, at least I'm only dead.

There's nothing inherently wrong with that. (To quote Fry, there's nothing wrong with anything.) Personally, I'm a big fan of making Death more rare in the system, but much tougher (or impossible) to come back from. Not every conflict is life-or-death, maybe most of them aren't life-or-death, but when they are dying's scarier because its more final. Shadowrun is about as lethal as D&D-- characters die about as often, in the games I've played-- but there's no Raise Dead.

I like Big "D" Death. I think it should be rare, but scary and significant. I'm happier with a less lethal game, but without Raises and Res's et al.

 

[jmucchiello]

We converted all death results to putting the character at -9 hit points and moved death to -CON and this applies only to PCs and important NPCs. So if you have 1 hp and the demon lords does 340 points of damage you drop to -9. If your CON is 17, the party has 8 rounds to stabilize you before you die. With this system I think we had one TPK* and about 8 real deaths (and 1 disintegration) over 4 years of weekly gaming. Basically, as long as the party wins the battle, no one dies except in certain circumstances (being a -9 when the fireball goes off usually means death).

* One character survived the TPK but retreating early so everyone was raised from that TPK.

 

[William drake]

One of my pet peeves with the current version of D&D is how fatal it can be. So many save or die options out there and potential triple-damage-digit attacks that fatalities are almost impossible to avoid.

Death isn't really a problem due to the abundance of resurrection-type spells. But that usually costs you a level.

Wouldn't it be better to have an alternate mechanic for death? Instead of instant death, why not some kind of comatose/incapacitated state that takes you out of the encounter but allows you to come back after the battle (presuming it's not a TPK)?

I think the game would be more fun if death wasn't as penalizing as it is.

Thoughts?

Well, if you don't like those spells....take them out of your game.

If you take out all the aspects which might make death an option, then the game becomes less real and more video-gameish. Also, the DM should be able to make it so that death isn't always the answer, but when it happens (It happens) and that's all there is too it.

I mean, seriously. I'd be bothered if for the fourth time my character was brutally wounded but kept living.....but that's just me. When combat happens in my games *or games I've played in* death happens. Mostly to the enemy, but some times to the players though we tried to make it so that it was rare: tatics, group effort, and an escape plan if things didn't go well. but then again, we also did always play with the standard Cleric in the group....and when we did, our cleric didn't just memories spells for healing...he did what he wanted, for himself, and for the group and we go through alot of hard times.

later.

Game On

 

[shilsen]

If you take out all the aspects which might make death an option, then the game becomes less real and more video-gameish.

Maybe for a given, limited definition of "video-gamish". Depending on definition, taking death out arguably also makes the game more literary, mythical, epic, etc. Think of all the literature, myths and epics where the hero does not die but gets all the way to the end (sometimes to have a climactic death there). "Video-gamish" isn't a particularly useful term.

 

[jdrakeh]

The optional "Death Flag" rule that rycanada uses with Action Points (he calls them by their True 20 name, Conviction Points) seems like it might benefit many a D&D campaign.

 

[Derren]

I don't understand it. D&D is already one of the most forgiving RPGs out there and you want to make it even less deadly?

Depending on definition, taking death out arguably also makes the game more literary, mythical, epic, etc. Think of all the literature, myths and epics where the hero does not die but gets all the way to the end (sometimes to have a climactic death there).

How is that different to "normal" D&D? Having a automatic "I win" (or rahter I don't loose) button doesn't make it any more epic (rather less). And as soon as the player figure that out the game most likely goes to hell.

Player: I search a dragon lair and charge inside.
Otehr Players: Dude, are you mad, you are first level!
Player: And? The DM doesn't kill me anyway. At worst I loose my starting equipment and get geased or something like that.

A little extreme but that will happen when the players know that they can't loose.

Killing characters because they do something stupid is at arbitrary as it can get. When the DM decides that what you wanted to do was stupid you die even if it wasnt. That leads to frustrated players who can't comprehend the DMs decisions of what is stupid and what isn't and "playing favorites" accusations (mostly correct ones) as even if the DM does want to stay fair its very likely that the good friend/roleplayer etx. gets more leeway than the stranger/silent/powergamer when it come to the decision of what is stupid and what not.

 

[shilsen]

I don't understand it. D&D is already one of the most forgiving RPGs out there and you want to make it even less deadly?

See multiple posts explaining reasons above. And the OP's already explained his position in the first post.

How is that different to "normal" D&D? Having a automatic "I win" (or rahter I don't loose) button doesn't make it any more epic (rather less). And as soon as the player figure that out the game most likely goes to hell.

Player: I search a dragon lair and charge inside.
Otehr Players: Dude, are you mad, you are first level!
Player: And? The DM doesn't kill me anyway. At worst I loose my starting equipment and get geased or something like that.

A little extreme but that will happen when the players know that they can't loose.

Maybe it would happen in your group. Hasn't happened in any of mine over more than 5 years of campaigns combined using the above rules, and I sincerely doubt it would happen in any of the groups I'm in as a player and not DM either. As I and multiple posters have explained above, dying is not the only form of losing in the game.

 

[Derren]

See multiple posts explaining reasons above. And the OP's already explained his position in the first post.

I have read them and don't agree with them (especially the "not as penalizing as it is" sentence. There is nearly no penalty to dieing in D&D compared to other rpgs). Take any other fantasy RPG. It most likely also save or die effects but D&D is probably the rpg where dieing has the least consequences. In other rpgs death means that you character is gone permanently. In D&D its just a small level and money loss (yes, like in a video game).
Permanent death is just part of the immersion. When you screw up you are dead. Game over.

And if your game is too lethal it is most likely not the fault of the game, its either the fault of the DM who can't make balanced encouters or the fault of the players who can't play their characters effectivly.

Maybe it would happen in your group. Hasn't happened in any of mine over more than 5 years of campaigns combined using the above rules, and I sincerely doubt it would happen in any of the groups I'm in as a player and not DM either. As I and multiple posters have explained above, dying is not the only form of losing in the game.

Is that so? I doubt that. Of course it is unlikely that this happens on the dragon scale (unless the players want show through their actions that they think that this rule is stupid). Hasn't it happened in all the years of gaming that your group surprises a cult of generic evil worshippers who haven't noticed them (or somethink like that) and simply charged, always knowing that action points and alternate death rules will keep them alive?

 

[cwhs01]

...people would still hate to die. I dunno why, it's deeply ingrained.

Evolution, would be my guess?