D&D General How Often Should a PC Die in D&D 5e?

[EzekielRaiden]

Well, I'm not a fan of it all that much, but verboten is probably a bit overstated.

But if fudging occurs, it isn't the dice saying anymore. The DM chose. By the standard given, the DM can't do that without violating the sanctity of in-world causation. Same goes for a wide variety of DMing tools, like quantum ogres, locations which just happen to be near whatever direction you decided to go, or anything else that arises from the DM deciding that this would be a better experience. I'm just not seeing how this uncompromising "it MUST be diegetic, it MUST be derived only from known information or the processes of the rules when said rules are invoked" stance can incorporate even a single instance of fudging without becoming self-contradictory.

"It must be diegetic and derived from known info or rules-processes, unless the DM feels different" is much, much too porous a standard for what you've articulated here and elsewhere.

 

[Lanefan]

One person having a successful table with a degenerate method does not make the method less degenerate. Especially as you follow it up by pointing out it was likely the exception, not the baseline.

The popularity of the game in the early 1980s would suggest a lot more than just one table made this "degenerate" method work just fine.

 

[Lanefan]

If I said someone had a metal rod driven through their skull, and survived, would you call it impossible? Most people would. Most people would say "that is impossible to survive, you would die"

Except Phineas Gage didn't die. Neither did the Australian Teenager in 2012. Or Michael Richards in 2022. Or the man in 2019.

This impossible thing has happened AT LEAST 4 times. Metal rod, through the skull, survived. So... it isn't impossible actually.

Not impossible, perhaps, but the odds of surviving such an event are and remain vanishingly small.

Which means don't try this at home, kids.

 

[Lanefan]

Can you tell the difference between Rambo and Paul Blart mallcop at a glance?

You kind of give away the whole game here, by saying "assuming those Elves are of the same class, age, abilities, etc.". Maybe you can't tell someone's piety from a glance, but if you were true and loyal to your God or Goddess, then... wouldn't it make sense they might reward you? That's what Sainthood is. On a fundamental level, it is saying "this person has abilities, ect. beyond what other people have".

Except in my original point to which you were responding, the abilities were in theory the same: I was talking about the potential death rate of an all-NPC adventuring group doing mission-X and suggesting the potential death rate of a PC group doing the same mission should be similar.

In other words, yes I am trying to compare apples to apples.

The story of the man who was killed before he did anything important isn't what most people are interested in playing. They don't want to be random civilian #3 in the Rambo movie. They want to be a named character with an important role, and more than likely... they want to be Rambo.

And if they're lucky then they just might end up with Rambo; but if they're not lucky they'll end up as someone who died trying to become Rambo. And that's the whole point: it's not the being Rambo that counts, it's the attempt to become Rambo.

Once I've made it to Rambo status my journey's pretty much over. Time to start a new character.

That's why they made a character like Rambo. Who could have in theory died at any point in any of his movies... but didn't.

I've never watched a Rambo movie but if he's like any other "action hero" he probably should have died a dozen times or more; and I personally find it jarring when they survive when they really shouldn't.

 

[Lanefan]

So, because Hercules and Odysseus and Atalanta are clearly different from ordinary Greeks, Greek mythology has no setting integrity?

Can't speak to Odysseus or Atalanta but Hercules was never an ordinary Greek. He was half-god, which in game terms would make him as a PC way too powerful for anything but the highest-level of parties.

 

[Lanefan]

Do we know yet if the question is about permanent death or death that is temporary?

There's been talk about both types, sometimes interchangeably, so your guess is as good as mine.

There's a further subdivision as well: death that is revived quickly such that the player only misses a short bit of action vs death that, while revived, forces the player to sit out for a longer period of time. The former of these isn't, I don't think, that much of an issue as 5.xe has no lasting after-effects or penalties, as written, for dying; in contrast with, say, 1e which did.

 

[Lanefan]

Why would it need to be an exception?

Because despite WotC's best attempts to the contrary D&D, at least the way I (and others?) see it, is not at its heart a "supers" game and isn't intended to be.

In a supers game you're playing the fully-developed super-powered character right from the start and go on playing it that way throughout. In D&D you're playing the journey towards maybe - or maybe not - becoming a super-powered character, and on characters achieving that status* the game generally ends.

* - generally seen as "name level" in the TSR editions and "capstone level" in the WotC ones.

 

[Oofta]

I'm not saying it is a gotcha. I'm saying you kept acting like our point that you had these hard lines you were not willing to discuss was completely fabricated, but you keep saying you have them. As I said before, you seem unwilling to be open to changing your mind, as evidenced by the fact that you literally say you will not change your mind (unless there is a change in the rules text regarding Thief Fast Hands)



This isn't about making things up as you go along. This is about the difference between making a decision long before a player talks to you and being unwilling to alter your position, and entering into any possible discussion with that player with the mindset of "I have made my decision, it is final, I am willing to tell you my decision, but I am not willing to change it"



You keep pointing to the books, like that means anything. We aren't discussing "how it has always been". We are discussing "how it might be" and "what is possible to do". You can't dismiss the discussion by just saying "The books give me the right to do this."



You do keep responding to me though. And to the points I'm raising. If you aren't discussing with me, but instead discussing with a strawman set up on some hill, then that's not really engaging in good faith. Also, you are responding to a general question, yet expect "I do it this way" to dismiss the premise of the general question? Sure, you've said I can do whatever I want... but you have ALSO said that the DM must be the final authority as empowered by the rulebooks and the last half century of the game. So which is it? Is it possible to DM differently, or not?



I'm not talking about always. See, you keep taking my position and making it more extreme. I never once said a 3rd party is ALWAYS the final authority. I said they COULD BE the final authority. It is possible. And if it is possible for them to be the Final Authority, then it is possible for the DM to NOT be the Final Authority.



If your only response to "it can be different" is "but I've always done it this way", then that isn't a very good rebuttal. And again, you keep claiming I've not been specific enough in my response on what to do when a difference of opinion comes up, but I've literally told you exactly what I would do. Repeatedly. I can't get more specific, because a discussion between two people involves having a discussion with the other person. It is like going to someone and saying "in a match against another person, what precisely will you do"? Anyone with any degree self-awareness will recognize that they cannot answer the question without knowing what the other person will do, because their actions will change your responses.

And the most frustrating part of this, is you changed your answer here at the end. Now it is "unlikely to change" rather than "it's not going to change anything"

You have stated that I never listen to what my players want, that I never listen to feedback. That's false. Sometimes I have already made a decision on certain things such as no evil PCs (which we've discussed in depth) or specific narrow rulings. We can still chat about it and I will explain.

I have also never said there was one true way, I just don't know how you resolve issues when there is a clear difference of opinion because all you ever respond with is "talk it out", which is meaningless.

You used me as an example of someone who never listens to feedback, who never listens to what my players want out of the game. It's BS and lies.

 

[Oofta]

Do we know yet if the question is about permanent death or death that is temporary?

Not really. Because in many games, death has always been a speed bump if the other PCs could recover the body. With revivify, the downtime for the PC is just shortened. Death, with the exception of revivify because the soul hasn't moved on yet, is almost always permanent in my games to the point I don't remember anyone ever casting Raise Dead on a PC.

 

[Oofta]

Not impossible, perhaps, but the odds of surviving such an event are and remain vanishingly small.

Which means don't try this at home, kids.

Well there goes my plans for my next weekend project.