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!
Since this is more or less how I run my own game (characters
can die, but there will always be a way to bring them back--it just might be costly), I can say that the game still has plenty of excitement. Heck,
for me, it actually has more!
I generally don't like to play "random death takes you out" games because they make me paranoid and disheartened. Paranoid because I'm going to be so afraid of losing my character, I'm going to never take risks, or at least never take a risk if I feel I ever have the slightest choice about it. That's boring! Players should be willing to do exciting things. Meanwhile, I get disheartened because every time I think about what I've achieved or where my character's been, there will be this haunting specter of "and next week you could lose it all, permanently, and it will all have meant nothing." That's deeply disheartening, and makes me feel like I shouldn't bother getting invested in the character. After all, if random unavoidable death is a thing,
eventually it's going to happen (that's how probability works, folks!) unless I bow out, and I don't really consider that fun or interesting.
Basically, for me, character death is the least interesting stake because it terminates participation. Sure, this induces fear of loss, but I don't find that fear an enjoyable experience--I find it very unpleasant, actually. And because in the long run that loss is essentially guaranteed, I lose interest in the character. What's the point of becoming attached to something, of caring about where it's going to go, when you
know where it's going and
know it's (eventually) going to be unpleasant? Better to disengage and avoid the heartbreak.
With unexpected+permanent death off the table (note that it really is the combination of the two that is the issue), I can relax--and pay attention to stakes that really matter to me. The allies and friends we meet, the places we become attached to, the enemies we struggle against, the personal victories earned and personal defeats suffered: these are the things that excite me. And that's where a more narrative, "protagonistic" experience is useful. The story happens to and around the characters, and they earn their victories as well as their defeats. It's not that the Song of Thorns threatens
the characters that makes them want to defeat it; it's that the Song of Thorns threatens to
destroy their home and
kill or corrupt their friends/family/beloveds which gives them the unshakable resolve to fight it. It's not that finding a new homeland for the Riddle-Makers will win them money or fame, but that
these are my people and I must protect them. It's not that uncovering the lost fourth volume of General Khalifa al-Hamdan's
Struggle and Calm will give bonuses or earn reputation, but because it is a valuable work of both philosophy and martial tactics that
deserves preservation and protection. (These are all motivations my real players have had in our current game, BTW.)
The point being: with unexpected+permanent death off the table, the players have space to focus on the aspects of their story that most excite them, that they want to overcome or build up or tear down. And each such victory or defeat enriches the world, makes things that much more ripe for investment and excitement on their part. Instead of a negative feedback loop running
away from
undesirable consequences, it is a positive feedback loop of running
toward the
desirable consequences.
