D&D 5E (2014) Where does the punitive approach to pc death come from?

[Flexor the Mighty!]

This is like a nice short summary of every argument I disagree with on the subject. So, yay for disagreement!

Yep, it takes different strokes and all that.

We just approach it like a game first*, and not a storytelling exercise. Not saying you are the opposite but that is usually the divide when I have discussions about it.

*and sometimes and unforgiven one at that.

 

[SirAntoine]

Because in post #116 you explicitly disagreed with the statement that starting at zero was "one of many playstyles and not the one true way."

You said, "I disagree."

I see. Most would be open to doing it differently, but the main thing I was saying is people thought of it as "the standard way". It 100% had some standing as such, and some people would call starting at higher than 1st level cheating and a sign of a bad campaign in other areas.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

I see. Most would be open to doing it differently, but the main thing I was saying is people thought of it as "the standard way". It 100% had some standing as such, and some people would call starting at higher than 1st level cheating and a sign of a bad campaign in other areas.

Thanks for clarifying.

As a datum in your favor, I remember that the Dark Sun campaign setting specifically listed on the box, as one of the interesting features of the setting, the fact that the world was so deadly that PCs rolled stats on 4d4+4 and started out at 3rd level instead of 1st. (Counterbalanced by the fact that the world was so barren that even finding a regular, non-magical steel longsword was a big deal, because it didn't give any penalties to-hit or damage!)

 

[pemerton]

Character death is a penalty for "failing" at the game, be it from poor decisions, bad luck with the dice, hot rolling DM, or anything else. In most games when you get "killed" and have to start over you start over from scratch if you aren't out of the game.

This is a nice, crisp statement of a gameplay reason for the "punitive" approach.

 

[Greg Benage]

We just approach it like a game first*, and not a storytelling exercise. Not saying you are the opposite but that is usually the divide when I have discussions about it.

I'll take this one step further in a way that I hope is productive: I think this is the approach to play that D&D supports the best. Or, if you want to play a game like this, D&D does it better than most. Or maybe both. Perhaps I'd say that at it's most pure, D&D is a sandbox (even if the sandbox is just a dungeon) in which the players have a great deal of control over the challenges they pursue, the risks they take, and let the dice fall where they may. If you succeed, you level up; if you die, you start over and try again.

For me, that's the sweet spot with D&D. I've gone through phases where I wanted more strongly narrative games with multi-page character backgrounds and some form of script immunity, and I generally found I preferred the way other games supported this style of play. I've also been through phases where I felt that RPGs in general are a lousy medium for storytelling, and that what you get in reality are clichéd characters, pastiche settings and incoherent plots that would be embarrassing in any real literary or dramatic media.

And that's key: Even for me personally, there's never been "one true way." My preferences have changed and changed back again over 35 years. Do whatever is fun for you and your group, and realize that you may change your mind tomorrow. Don't take it too seriously.

 

[Flexor the Mighty!]

I'll take this one step further in a way that I hope is productive: I think this is the approach to play that D&D supports the best. Or, if you want to play a game like this, D&D does it better than most. Or maybe both. Perhaps I'd say that at it's most pure, D&D is a sandbox (even if the sandbox is just a dungeon) in which the players have a great deal of control over the challenges they pursue, the risks they take, and let the dice fall where they may. If you succeed, you level up; if you die, you start over and try again.

For me, that's the sweet spot with D&D. I've gone through phases where I wanted more strongly narrative games with multi-page character backgrounds and some form of script immunity, and I generally found I preferred the way other games supported this style of play. I've also been through phases where I felt that RPGs in general are a lousy medium for storytelling, and that what you get in reality are clichéd characters, pastiche settings and incoherent plots that would be embarrassing in any real literary or dramatic media.

And that's key: Even for me personally, there's never been "one true way." My preferences have changed and changed back again over 35 years. Do whatever is fun for you and your group, and realize that you may change your mind tomorrow. Don't take it too seriously.

Yeah when I'm putting together stuff my main approach is, will this be fun at the table? Will it make total sense is a distant second to that. Granted I try not to do too many zoo dungeons with no food sources anymore. But a lot of stuff we run is cliched and incoherent from a story view but makes for fun gaming. For other systems I'd probably take a different approach but for the most part we play D&D with the odd session of Twilight 2000. Wish I could get a regular game of Traveller going....

 

[Flexor the Mighty!]

This is a nice, crisp statement of a gameplay reason for the "punitive" approach.

I suppose, and I admit its a style of gaming that often rubs players the wrong way. Especially people who are into more story type games.

 

[Lanefan]

Memorable accomplishments:

I think that high level PCs are more likely to be memorable, everything else being equal, if the campaign lasts for a longer rather than a shorter time. I think this is similar to [MENTION=49017]Bluenose[/MENTION]'s point: long-lasting play tends to be memorable.

All true, but keep in mind long-lasting play doesn't always mean high-level characters are involved.

... duration and depth of play, not survival per se, that in my experience makes the difference. The "accomplishment", such as it is, is not the player accomplishment of keeping the character alive, but rather the social/group accomplishment of keeping the campaign active and engaging.

It's both. The group accomplishment is keeping the game going enjoyably for 6 or 8 or 10 years; but within that there's the player (character) accomplishment of keeping a character alive for 10 or 15 or 20 adventures.

Resurrection: We've always said any one bone (including a tooth) is enough to resurrect from but something like a hair or bit of skin is not. As our games don't have True Res. or anything equivalent the only ways to revive someone without having any parts on hand at all are:
- wish (if worded well)
- divine intervention
- walking into the land of the dead and buying/stealing the right spirit (i.e. an adventure)

Lan-"and I, of course, found a fourth way; but it still came down to divine action in the end"-efan

 

[Bluenose]

All true, but keep in mind long-lasting play doesn't always mean high-level characters are involved.

Some of the best gaming I've had, and long lasting campaigns at that, have been in games where characters didn't advance their skills in any appreciable way - Traveller is the ur-example, of course. If you start the game with characters who match up to the concept you have of them, then advancement becomes almost a nuisance. It can work even in D&D, though you probably want characters higher than first level to start. And then, adventure and don't bother adding more XP/levels - let people improve equipment, gain contacts, create organisations, but don't give them extra power. It seems to work perfectly well.

 

[Sunseeker]

Yep, it takes different strokes and all that.

We just approach it like a game first*, and not a storytelling exercise. Not saying you are the opposite but that is usually the divide when I have discussions about it.

*and sometimes and unforgiven one at that.

I usually find myself in the middle. I wouldn't play D&D if I didn't like the rules and there are better, I guess more "free flowing" systems for a heavier narrative approach where the "game" becomes little more than background noise while we essentially RP out the adventure.

I guess that's what I like about 5th so far, it hits that nice spot between "Here's some rules to run your game." and "Here's some room to make it up as you go." It's not JUST rules and it's not JUST make-believe.