D&D General If not death, then what?

[CreamCloud0]

See, I think you'd be hard-pressed to come up with a specific, actual example of those other kinds of narratives having completely plot-irrelevant encounters like that. We sometimes imagine they work like that, in the abstract, but movies tend to be very tightly constructed (sometimes maybe too much so) and despite their length, most novels aren't just a string of unrelated incidents. Fights, when they happen in most narratives, have some purpose. Maybe the payoff isn't immediate, but they at least establish certain characters or plot threads.

No, but in that campaign novel after the game couldn’t you make it seem like things were being set up for later intentionally? The wolf encounter ‘revealed’ the teen boy has medicine proficiency (from their ‘sports training’ background) when they use it to wrap the mom’s injured leg, this proficiency comes back in the ‘final dungeon’ organisation headquarters where that proficiency lets them recognise a drug they’re using and it’s properties to defeat the organisation, other media just have it easier to connect things because they’re not experiencing the first draft of the story as it’s being put together.

 

[theCourier]

The fact that characters can die from a "random encounter" in these kind of RPGs is a feature for me, personally.

And also one of the many reasons I don't find it helpful to use comparisons to other type of media to dictate what playing D&D or D&D-like games is like. Cause they can be inspired from them, and seek to emulate them on a certain level, but the dice roll possibility for death or other consequences to happen during a "meaningless" encounter is something that'd never happen in a movie or book.

 

[Grendel_Khan]

No, but in that campaign novel after the game couldn’t you make it seem like things were being set up for later intentionally? The wolf encounter ‘revealed’ the teen boy has medicine proficiency (from their ‘sports training’ background) when they use it to wrap the mom’s injured leg, this proficiency comes back in the ‘final dungeon’ organisation headquarters where that proficiency lets them recognise a drug they’re using and it’s properties to defeat the organisation, other media just have it easier to connect things because they’re not the first draft of the story.

This approach is fantastic, and leans toward my current favorite way of playing or running, which is as improv-heavy as possible, including finding connections after the fact. But I don't think that's what most folks who use random encounters really do. A wandering monster is just a wandering monster, aka walking XP gains and resource-management, all par for the course in the x-number-of-encounters-per-day playstyle.

 

[Helldritch]

The fact that characters can die from a "random encounter" in these kind of RPGs is a feature for me, personally.

And also one of the many reasons I don't find it helpful to use comparisons to other type of media to dictate what playing D&D or D&D-like games is like. Cause they can be inspired from them, and seek to emulate them on a certain level, but the dice roll possibility for death or other consequences to happen during a "meaningless" encounter is something that'd never happen in a movie or book.

Which is why I consider this way of playing superior. We are not attempting to create the DM's novel or the background story of a player or some players. We are litteraly seeing a story evolve from our game. Sometimes, the story ends well. Sometimes, it ends badly. We truly do not know. This is what makes it so fun.

 

[Helldritch]

This approach is fantastic, and leans toward my current favorite way of playing or running, which is as improv-heavy as possible, including finding connections after the fact. But I don't think that's what most folks who use random encounters really do. A wandering monster is just a wandering monster, aka walking XP gains and resource-management, all par for the course in the x-number-of-encounters-per-day playstyle.

Yes, I stay as close as possible to the encounter per day style. But random encounters do not yield treasure nor do they give experience. The random encounters are just there to be a nuisance to the group. But the random table is made in advance and always related to what can be found in the adventure. We do find connection after the fact, justifications and so on. Sometimes, the players find much more believable story for the presence of some foes than what I can come up with. We are building a story. We are just building it from the randomness of the dice and let fate decides what will come and once fate has decided, we adjust ourselves to the story.

 

[Umbran]

That's always bugged the heck out of me in gaming. I saw it all the time when I used to watch Critical Role. They would act convincingly threatened whenever combat ensued, even though in a lot of cases there was just no real chance of failure, and the players had to know it. It felt disingenuous to me.

1) If character reactions are based on what the players know... that's metagaming. You want that? Or should the characters (and the players, if the players are acting out their roles) base reactions off what the characters know?

1a) It isn't disingenuous. It is called acting. The entirety of D&D is an elaborate game of, "Let's pretend," so calling it disingenuous seems a bit weird to me.

2) A major part of immersion is what we might call "willing suspension of disbelief". It is relevant in RPGs, and in consumption of most fantastical fiction and media. As in, I am a physicist - if I can't hang up my knowledge of real-world physics in the closet and leave it there, I could not enjoy Star Trek, or Star Wars, or superhero movies, or most genre fiction.

3) Beware the inconsistent standard - in a game where death was common, approaching an encounter as if you know there's no real chance of failure is asking your GM to make that one beggar kobold into a 20th level fighter to smack you all down for unskilled play. I submit that acting as if there's a threat may be skilled play in both cases, just applying different skills.

 

[Warpiglet-7]

I actually play D&D for some visceral stimulation…

I just cannot get a thrill if I cannot die.

So many times we yell and high five…just getting out of a jam is a kick. Taking down great evil with some risk is fantastic.

Everyone has a story…mine was fighting at 3 HP against creatures that do 2-8. I got hit DM rolls in the open….2 damage! The table goes wild! I get my attack and drop him! I am able to keep the party alive…25 years ago and we still remember it.

Another one…ranger’s friends get drug into a tunnel by ghouls. Wait for them to be eaten or be a hero? I go in and….get paralyzed. We all die together. I really liked that character! Damn!

It is really is no good for me without death but it’s also not fun to sit around when others keep playing. I get it. I don’t like to die either.

But the deck is rigged especially with 5e. You can’t always win. There are quite a few tactical withdrawals and a very very few deaths. It’s a price I am willing to play.

Alternatives of course are raise dead and other magic at mid levels. Some loss of ability score, some loss of magic, some loss of coin are other ways to have “loss.”

But I need death…

 

[DND_Reborn]

I once even had a guy just walk out of my house in the middle of an encounter where his character dropped, because, in his mind "I wasn't going to be able to play my character for the rest of the night, so I have better things to do than sit around and watch you guys have fun".

I think you mentioned this before. If a player did this in my game, they would not be invited back. It is insanely disrespectful IMO.

I always said I was OK with death if it was obviously the player's fault. But too often, it's not.

While this sometimes happens, more often than not what seems like dumb luck (a critical hit, for example) only led to death because the player insisted on playing their PC as though they were invincible.

For example, in my last session a week ago, a player has the chance to have his PC disengage and reform with the rest of the party, but he insisted on attacking even though he was already injured and below half HP. He hit, but the monster survived and critted him, for instant death.

So, while some people might say, "Oh, that isn't fair, it was just bad luck." My answer: "Maybe, but what happened before that?" Odds are, the PC put themselves at risk and should have been considering other options.

That being said, sometimes it is just "dumb luck", but IME more often than not there are underlying circumstances.

Look at the classic "front-line Fighter". He believes it's his job to run into the fray, and hold the line, taking a beating so his allies don't have to. If anyone is going to be laying on the ground, taking death saves, it's him. For...doing what he's supposed to do?

Yes, that is his job, but not to the point of suicide. If he is pressed, he has to be able to fall back and have others pick up the slack. Unless you have a small party, most groups have at least two front-liners IME, and they can trade off duty if the encounter permits.

Few people have any real way to mitigate hit point loss

It isn't mitigated in that sense, it is withstood. Those PCs also tend to have the most hit points purposefully for taking that damage.

But despite that, I've never taken death off the table. I try to avoid it, as a DM, because it sucks for everyone. But I'm not sure what to replace it with. And if there is to be a penalty to a close brush with death...what the heck can it be, that doesn't seem grossly unfair at times?

My first suggestion would be a coma until they finish a long rest. You mentioned not doing time-sensitive missions, so that might work. If a long rest is too long, maybe just a short rest?

Another option is allowing them to spend HD to stay up, using their reaction maybe. But while at 0 hit points perhaps some penalty, like half speed, disadvantage on attacks, etc. How severe you want this is really up to your group and what they feel good with.

 

[Lanefan]

This is true. I think everyone sits somewhere on a sliding scale of what they'll allow. For example, I can't think of even the strictest DM who, if the person on first watch failed to spot a group of ambushers, would have the sentry be garotted and the rest of the party murdered in their sleep with no response, even though that might make sense in that situation.

You've met one now.

Would have been an easy TPK except the third sleeper/victim woke up just in time and yelled, after which the lone assassin (a Goblin the party had run off earlier) didn't have a chance.

 

[Lanefan]

I don't- i kinda treat that the same way you treat players actually paying attention to the hooks and engaging with the stuff that's happening in the world instead of say, doing investment banking. If the players are having the characters do nutty things because they know i'm not going to try to kill them, that's gonna be a sit-down OOC-

Why? The players are only doing what they should, that being to push the limits until the limits push back.

If death's off the table and I-as-player know death's off the table then hell, it's gonzo all the way and open season on the crazy stuff.

Put another way, if I-as-player know my character can't die then I take it as a given that my character knows it can't die, and it's going to behave with that knowledge firmly in mind.

but, if they're respecting the challenges ahead of them despite the fact that it is exceedingly unlikely that they'll be killed, that's ideal, it's just being a good player at the table.

OK, that's a shift: "exceedingly unlikely" does not mean "never", and we're talking about "never" here. As in Toon-level never.