D&D General Why fear is good for PCs

Since this thread is still active I wanted to link to this great video about PC death in the older editions that got posted the other day

The video dives into a lot of the ""yea kinda but no not really" misconceptions about PC death and why it's more complicated or that it may have been true about the PC but the party over time was the important thing.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Since this thread is still active I wanted to link to this great video about PC death in the older editions that got posted the other day

The video dives into a lot of the ""yea kinda but no not really" misconceptions about PC death and why it's more complicated or that it may have been true about the PC but the party over time was the important thing.
It's a two-hour video, that's a bit much :'D
I was ready for 15-20min. Do you have a rough summary?
 

It's a two-hour video, that's a bit much :'D
I was ready for 15-20min. Do you have a rough summary?
I haven't been through that one, but knowing channel, it'll be a fairly just-the-facts walkthrough of the rules covering the topic in the TSR versions (emphasis on oD&D, BX, AD&D, and 2E), with some discussion about the consequences based on the playstyle the devs of the time assumed. So it will cover how oD&D/Basic had no penalties except two weeks downtime (and how in that time the DM's other gaming groups might strip the dungeon bare, leaving you in the lurch). Also finding a capable caster (and the rules on what towns would have a cleric of that level, and what their attitude to the party might be). For AD&D it'll also cover how you lose Con when raised (and have a lifetime limit of your original Con score), how you have to make resurrection % checks when raised, how casting the raise spell ages the caster (who then has to make system shock % checks). Also how the cost in GP means delay in training at level-up (since how much gp you earn in getting enough xp to level-up leaves you with virtually none left over). Probably also caveats about how no two group played the same, every module or setting slightly tweaked the availability of clerics and how much they would charge, and/or how wishes ranged from the rarest thing ever to finding them under every toadstool cap. He's very liberal with handing out 'and this is why [my childhood/the TSR era of A/D&D] was so great,' while also acknowledging that it was a constantly evolving mess that differed over time (and as you levelled up) and between groups and that no two gamers of the era had the same experience. "yea kinda but no not really" is a pretty good description.

I'll watch after work and update if I see I was complete wrong.
 

I haven't been through that one, but knowing channel, it'll be a fairly just-the-facts walkthrough of the rules covering the topic in the TSR versions (emphasis on oD&D, BX, AD&D, and 2E), with some discussion about the consequences based on the playstyle the devs of the time assumed. So it will cover how oD&D/Basic had no penalties except two weeks downtime (and how in that time the DM's other gaming groups might strip the dungeon bare, leaving you in the lurch). Also finding a capable caster (and the rules on what towns would have a cleric of that level, and what their attitude to the party might be). For AD&D it'll also cover how you lose Con when raised (and have a lifetime limit of your original Con score), how you have to make resurrection % checks when raised, how casting the raise spell ages the caster (who then has to make system shock % checks). Also how the cost in GP means delay in training at level-up (since how much gp you earn in getting enough xp to level-up leaves you with virtually none left over). Probably also caveats about how no two group played the same, every module or setting slightly tweaked the availability of clerics and how much they would charge, and/or how wishes ranged from the rarest thing ever to finding them under every toadstool cap. He's very liberal with handing out 'and this is why [my childhood/the TSR era of A/D&D] was so great,' while also acknowledging that it was a constantly evolving mess that differed over time (and as you levelled up) and between groups and that no two gamers of the era had the same experience. "yea kinda but no not really" is a pretty good description.

I'll watch after work and update if I see I was complete wrong.
But these all seem to be reasons for why death WOULD be sucky in early editions. The video is (I believe) about why death wasn't sucky 😅
 

I'll watch after work and update if I see I was complete wrong.
But these all seem to be reasons for why death WOULD be sucky in early editions. The video is (I believe) about why death wasn't sucky 😅
Turns out I was completely wrong about the topic of focus. It wasn't really about how resurrection worked, and more about how the game goes on if a character dies.
 

Typically in a TTRPG it is not a respawn, it's making a new character who lacks the history of Bob I who is coming into a world that's in a different state than what Bob faced. While it's possible to play a TTRPG where the party gets into a battle, dies, goes back to town, picks up duplicate characters, then can venture back into the exact same fight and attempt it again, that's very much not the typical way to run a world, and it 'lets add a II to every characters name and try the fight again' definitely doesn't sound like something I'd consider a 'deadly' game where PCs fear death. Also the versions of D&D that many people are talking about don't allow reuse of the same stats as you roll for PC stats and HP.
As with everything in D&D, there is no universal experience. "Bob II" is not an apocryphal story, but so is the classic "you enter the room and die." "What killed me?" "Can't tell you. You're next character wouldn't know." type of DMing.

My point though was that DMs who view PC death not as a tragedy but as a statistic tended to get "Bob II" in spirit if not in practice. Why invest in a backstory if there is a good chance it's not going to matter? Why even bother for more personality than an alignment and a cheesy accent when your PCs fate is a poisoned needle death? Why should I invest in a character when there is a better than not chance he's going to dirt nap sooner rather than later? Kill enough PCs and they all blur together. A collection of pawns, a bunch of 1ups. They mean nothing more than the top hat in Monopoly.

That's what repeated death leads to. It might not look like a respawn in Elden Ring, but it feels as about the same.
 

As with everything in D&D, there is no universal experience. "Bob II" is not an apocryphal story, but so is the classic "you enter the room and die." "What killed me?" "Can't tell you. You're next character wouldn't know." type of DMing.

My point though was that DMs who view PC death not as a tragedy but as a statistic tended to get "Bob II" in spirit if not in practice. Why invest in a backstory if there is a good chance it's not going to matter? Why even bother for more personality than an alignment and a cheesy accent when your PCs fate is a poisoned needle death? Why should I invest in a character when there is a better than not chance he's going to dirt nap sooner rather than later? Kill enough PCs and they all blur together. A collection of pawns, a bunch of 1ups. They mean nothing more than the top hat in Monopoly.

That's what repeated death leads to. It might not look like a respawn in Elden Ring, but it feels as about the same.
Why would I as a gm care about the author self insert novella attached to a character who has already done the coolest things it's ever going to do before it came to the table when I'd rather a simple sentence or two for a character who is developed in deed through play over time?

That's important because you present that backstory "investment" as a self evident net good for all but don't even hint at a single reason why it might be desirable for anyone but yourself
 

Recent & Upcoming Releases

Remove ads

Top