D&D General What does D&D look like without Death on the Table?

[Reynard]

A friend and I were talking about running games, player characters, story and protagonists. Long story short we decided that in most cases, the protagonists' lives are not really on the line and if they are it is at a climactic or dramatically appropriate time.

Before I continue: Ido not believe this is the best way to play D&D. I like emergent story, and sometimes the story is "you fell in a goblin hole and got eaten by rot grubs." Adventuring is dangerous business, the heroes are the ones that survive, and so on.

That said: if a group decides to treat their PCs like protagonists in a longer story and effectively take the kind of unsatisfying, random death caused by bad die rolls out of the equation, what does a D&D campaign look like? If you play this way, how does it work and how does/did it go? if you don't play this way, what do you think? if you refuse to play this way, why and what are you worried about?

Thanks!

 

[Argyle King]

Do consequences for failure still exist in this version of the game?

(I think they can, but I am asking for clarification before I answer.)

 

[Undrave]

You ever played Cartoon Action Hour? That game has no death. Characters don’t take damage, they only gather ‘Setback Tokens’ and when they gather a number superior to their ‘Star Power’ they are taken out of the scene, usually in a way the players pick. Setback tokens don’t (normally) last longer than scene. And it’s possible to fail an opposed check so bad that you get taken out immediately instead of getting a single token.

it doesn’t super well works if you go in with combat-centric characters. It getd repetitive, but you can get some dramatic failiure. The game also uses a d12 instead of d20 so it gets super swingy, and thus you really got to get good at preparing for the failiure of heroes.

 

[Iry]

You can handle it the same way comic books handle Superman, and it works fine, provided your players buy into emotionally caring about the people and things in your world. In many ways, "Dire Consequences" not involving death are more interesting than outright stopping someone's story and their associated plot hooks. You can stretch that too thin, of course, but losing an arm or a loved one is often more character development than simply dying.

 

[werecorpse]

I have run a lot of D&D campaigns that last 2+ years and it’s quite often that in the early phase (below about 6th) death is a significant likelihood. Many have been the single story campaigns like adventure paths. More than one campaign has had the sole survivor recruit a bunch of new 5th level adventurers. This is fine at the start of the story. But once they get past 9th it’s pretty rare that a permanent character death happens. I see this as a feature of the game not a bug because also by this level the players have powerful magic at their command and they feel that they can frequently (not always) face down death. Plus they have a decent amount invested in their character and to play a new character for the last third of an adventure path where everyone else has a character with solid history in the story is just less fun.

The question then is what are the stakes. In these story heavy campaigns like the Paizo adventure paths or Tomb of Annihilation the stakes of failure are two fold, the lesser is getting the loot on offer and the greater is stopping the bad guys doing their thing.

 

[Weiley31]

Basically you would need consequences to happen. Oh that kid that looked up to your Paladin and wanted to be his squire? Well the kid appears to bail the paladin out but gets eaten by a dragon in the process. The elven archer NPC your party is good friends with gets her defense position overrun by the goblin horde and she's torn apart. Etc, etc, etc.

And the NPCs of the world should react accordingly.

"Oh hey yeah I'd hire you, but after that tale came about involving that town your group failed to save, I think my coin is better spent on a group that I know can get the job done."

-the party face decides to roll a CHA check on Persu-

"I SAID NO!!! Good Day kind sir."

-the door is slammed shut in the party face's...uh face.-

 

[Kurotowa]

Well, I don't know that perma-death has ever been a game feature. Even if someone died at low enough level we couldn't cast Raise Dead ourselves, the DM made one available at a plot cost instead of a gold on. But if you're going to make it an explicit house rule and not just a de facto DM style, then you need to have a brief sidebar in Session Zero to explain the stakes and narrative consequences you're going to be playing for. If I were doing it it would go something like this.

"Think of it like a TV series. The PCs are the main characters and they only get written out when the player decides they want to retire the PC. Defeat means you narrowly escape with some distinctive new scars, or perhaps are captured and have to ransom your freedom from your captor. Failure means the rampaging dragon burns the village to the ground, along with many of the NPCs you'd grown attached to, and the next adventure is leading the survivors to a place of safety. If you prefer a video game metaphor, we're not playing on iron man where one mistake means your character gets erased, but you don't have manual saves so there's no takebacks when things don't go as planned."

 

[jayoungr]

I distinguish between PC death and PC permadeath.

PCs can die, but if the player still wants to continue playing the character, I'll work with that player to find a way to bring the PC back somehow.

The player having to sit out for a while or bring in another character temporarily is consequences enough for us.

 

[MNblockhead]

I try to keep death off my game table, unless it is ground up, formed into a patty and grilled.

As for death in the game. I'm not a fan. PC death is not a frequent occurrence in my game but it is a very real threat. For me, the goldilocks zone for my D&D games is infrequent-to-rare character death. When death happens, even if for a stupid reason, it is impactful and memorable.

Now, in Paranoia, if a character doesn't die one an hour, you're doing it wrong. But that is a pretty slap-stick. Frequent PC death works best in slapstick games. Otherwise it starts to feel like an old video game without save points.

I don't know that I've played any game where death was completely off the table. Even if highly unlikely, it was always a possibility. Let's see...

The Expanse - kinda hard to die, the game is more about cinematic gaming and setbacks, but death is still possible. The mechanics just try to ensure that any PC death is a dramatic moment.

InSPECTREs. It is so improvised back and forth between game master and players that PC death is unlikely to happen unless the player buys into the idea. But the play CAN buy into it and so death is possible.

Dialect. Hard to see anyone dying in the middle of the game given how it is structured. But frequently EVERYONE dies at the end of the game. It actually works best that way, knowing that you are playing towards the group's inevitable demise.

Okay...I thought of one. There is no PC death in Labyrinth. Losing just means that the goblin king keeps your baby brother (or, optionally, some other MacGuffin). But Labyrinth is made for one shots, not campaigns.

I don't play superhero games, just not a fan of the genre. Actually the nobody-really-dies and rampant retconning turns me off on the genre outside of TTRPGs, except for limited series like "From Hell" that tell the story and are done.

 

[zarionofarabel]

That said: if a group decides to treat their PCs like protagonists in a longer story and effectively take the kind of unsatisfying, random death caused by bad die rolls out of the equation, what does a D&D campaign look like?

Like a D&D campaign. As far as understand in most 5e campaigns death happens very infrequently.

If you play this way, how does it work and how does/did it go?

Far Trek has a rule that says if the PCs take damage that would kill them they simply fall unconscious. It works fine. As other posters have said, there are more interesting consequences of failure than death.

if you don't play this way, what do you think?

Think about what?

If you refuse to play this way, why and what are you worried about?

I'm really not sure what you are asking.

Thanks!

You're welcome.