Poll: Dying in Table-Top RPGs

[Satinavian]

I want...your and other's opinion on how they feel when they die in a table-top RPG. Not really a discussion on whether or not DnD is meant more for combat or not.

But that really does belong together.

If i die in :

D&D : I am mildly annoyed but i was prepared anyway. Bound to happen occassionally with so many deadly fights. And most of the time i will get a way to get the character back later, so it is not a big issue.

Paranoia : Haha, don't care

Call of Cthulu : Meh, the whole game is about the journey to death or insanity anyway. I never expected to play the PC for long.

TDE : I would be really sad. Deaths are far less common in this far less violent more fairytale RPG. But Characters are meant to be played for years and there is no coming back from death.

Shadowrun : I have Edge/Karma for that. Death doesn't come unexpected and i do have tools to do something about it if i really want to avoid it. So i probably have seen it coming and am fine with it. Except if i think, the reason of death is the GM.

SIFRP : I am angry with myself. Usually it is completely my fault if my character dies. Like in the novels/TV epidodes there are consequences for bad decisions and every campaign i played in captured that mood. Also the game rules often provide oportunities to back down and accept a minor loss of some kind which i obviously never took if my character died. So again my fault alone.

Mechwarrior : Death usually comes as part of a wargaming minigame. As a wargamer i am OK with it. But i don't like how random it is. Would be angry about the stupid rules if some random roll out of nowhere killed my character.

WoD : Depends completely on context. In the groups i played in PvP was always an option and all the paranoid characters, the neverending threat and the hundread easy ways to escalate conflicts provided tension but also provided many scenarios where some players where responsible for the deaths of other characters (potentially by mistake). The heavy reliance on DM rulings doen't help either. It is one thing if a PC died because of rules and another if he/she died because of a ruling.

I will not include games that don't have death obviously


So... It depends.

 

[Saelune]

I want...your and other's opinion on how they feel when they die in a table-top RPG. Not really a discussion on whether or not DnD is meant more for combat or not.

But that really does belong together.

If i die in :

D&D : I am mildly annoyed but i was prepared anyway. Bound to happen occassionally with so many deadly fights. And most of the time i will get a way to get the character back later, so it is not a big issue.

Paranoia : Haha, don't care

Call of Cthulu : Meh, the whole game is about the journey to death or insanity anyway. I never expected to play the PC for long.

TDE : I would be really sad. Deaths are far less common in this far less violent more fairytale RPG. But Characters are meant to be played for years and there is no coming back from death.

Shadowrun : I have Edge/Karma for that. Death doesn't come unexpected and i do have tools to do something about it if i really want to avoid it. So i probably have seen it coming and am fine with it. Except if i think, the reason of death is the GM.

SIFRP : I am angry with myself. Usually it is completely my fault if my character dies. Like in the novels/TV epidodes there are consequences for bad decisions and every campaign i played in captured that mood. Also the game rules often provide oportunities to back down and accept a minor loss of some kind which i obviously never took if my character died. So again my fault alone.

Mechwarrior : Death usually comes as part of a wargaming minigame. As a wargamer i am OK with it. But i don't like how random it is. Would be angry about the stupid rules if some random roll out of nowhere killed my character.

WoD : Depends completely on context. In the groups i played in PvP was always an option and all the paranoid characters, the neverending threat and the hundread easy ways to escalate conflicts provided tension but also provided many scenarios where some players where responsible for the deaths of other characters (potentially by mistake). The heavy reliance on DM rulings doen't help either. It is one thing if a PC died because of rules and another if he/she died because of a ruling.

I will not include games that don't have death obviously


So... It depends.

DnD is meant to be very versatlie though. Most of those other ones are very specific. Maybe you might not want to use DnD for a Sci-Fi game (but you can) but it can be most anything. The others are far more specific and focused.

Plus I dont like ones that are specific settings. Making my own world is one of the best parts of DMing.

Its fine if you have different opinions on dying in different games, and feel free to elaborate, but this "DnD is for combat" thing is honestly annoying and not the question I asked.

 

[Satinavian]

Yes, you can use D&D for something different than combat heavy games (I wouldn't). Obviously that would change the feel and flow of the game and would in turn also change how i would feel about dying.

 

[SlumlordThanatos]

Eh. I just make backup characters in case my first one (basically a Witcher-esque Eldrich Knight fighter, though he's not nearly good enough with women to be Geralt with CHA being my dump stat) dies.

I've already got two: a warlock who made a pact with a Great Old One and lost his ability to speak coherently...so if he needs to communicate, he has to rely on his telepathy. And if that one also dies, a heavy-metal bard who will basically be Nathan Explosion. I mean, I try not to create characters with 5000-word backstories, and I typically just use the default stat line (15, 14, 13, 12, 10, 8) for new characters.

Unless your DM is a colossal dick, he'll find a way to introduce a new character after someone gets killed. A smart DM won't throw anything at your party that poses a genuine threat for the first couple of sessions, and should tell his group that death is a real risk and to be prepared to deal with it.

 

[meiam]

Personally what I really like in DnD is how you can get story to naturally evolve from the randomness of the dice, story that you would never normally get (the giant demi god being getting killed by the bard who just rolled insanely good or the great paladin getting killed by a random rodent). And without failure state combat feel pretty pointless, same for character creation, why bother making an exceptional fighter when an average one will get the same results.

I think the DM need to be quick on his feet though, so if one member get killed you can make something big out of it, so say elevate the random no name enemy that did the killing into some super badass boss to be taken out later on (kinda like shadow of mordor). And you can usually include a new character pretty quick, like say the group free a prisoner in the dungeon or something, you also don't necessary need to finish the character, just have the player pick a race, class and basic personality quickly, then finish the session with a generic version and then have them flesh out there character between session.

Then again I never liked the idea of making a big complicated back story for a character, I always preferred just a simple one paragraph one and then letting the character backstory organically emerge over the sessions.

 

[happyninja42]

Depends on the game, the setting, and my character's background. I've played several that would leap into the maw of death, laughing triumphantly the whole time as they did it. Others would make every effort to avoid death, because for them, glory and legacy wasn't important.

Im planning a big event for my next DnD session (should have been today, but no one told me it was cancelled, so I have time to prepare more) and its going to be potentially quite deadly.

I personally do not DM to kill usually, but to give my players the grounds for their story. So I try to not kill my players, but they tend to want greater risk and challenge...until they die anyways.

Im curious what other people feel about dying and the risk of it in table-top RPGs, such as DnD, but really all are fine.

Do you like games/DMs who make the risk of death quite real?

I like games where the possibility is there. If there is zero possibility of death of the character, than any life and death scenario you toss at them is going to be undermined by the knowledge that there really is no risk to them personally. So if you are banking on getting the players nervous about a fight, because "ooh! It's the Big Bad! he's got a mecha-Trex with lazer eyes and a buzzsaw tail!" And they yawn at it...well yeah, you kind of brought that on yourself by letting them know no risk of death exists. If you insist on the No Kill system, you would then have the very unenviable task of trying to get players to give a shit about NPCs. I know, why don't I just ask you to sprout wings and fly right? Maybe the PC's can't die, but if the group of NPC's they've come to know and love are on the chopping block, you might still get some investment from the players in the moment. But, most players don't give a fuck about anyone but themselves and their own PC, so that's a risky gamble in my experience.

Do you prefer that they try to keep you alive?

I prefer they don't actively try and kill me, but I also prefer they don't make everything in the campaign "Baby Safe" either. Give me a chance (reasonable likelihood of survival) for whatever scheme I come up with, and I'm fine. If I die, oh well. Now if I say something like "I want to strap a thermo-nuclear bomb to my chest, and do a HALO jump without a chute, aiming myself into the throat of the giant beast trying to eat that coastal city....then yeah, I'm dead. And any player that tries to say they should survive some plan like that, is a fool. But in that situation, make the death fucking matter. Play up the awesomeness of it, play up how the people of the city see the lone figure "falling like a blazing comet, aimed at the heart of the monstrosity, and in a flash of power and energy, the threat was destroyed. Nobody that lived through that day, will ever forget the person who gave all, so that they could live" Now, if I just do something stupid, and you warn me "there is basically no chance that you can survive that, and it's not really going to accomplish anything anyway" and I still insist on doing it, well, then yeah, kill my ass. There is heroic sacrifice, and then there is just bone stupid suicidal.

How do you feel when its your character that kicks the bucket?

Again, depends on the character and the game. If I'm playing a character, especially some kind of protector/guardian type, then yeah, the idea of dying isn't a problem, and in fact, in some cases I expect it. In fact, in one game, I tried to do a "heroic sacrifice" death, standing against a wave of undead so that the other players, and the VIP NPC could escape. I was set, I was ready for this shit! Bring it on fuckers!!.....but the GM decided he didn't want my PC to die (even though this was the final session), and basically said "your guy escapes". Which really annoyed me. I WANTED to die in that situation. To have my epic ending stolen from me, simply on the basis of "I didn't want to kill your PC", was directly contrary to fun.


Now, you should be sure to establish the ground rules up front. If you plan on the game being highly violent, and having LOTS of chances for death, let them know this. I usually give a little speech to my players at the start of a campaign.

"I'm not actively going to try and kill you, but I'm not going to go out of my way to save you either. Think of this game as an improv play, you guys are the actors, i'm the director. If you all die...the play is over, and my story doesn't get finished. I don't want that, so don't act completely gunshy with every threat. Feel free to be bold and heroic, that's why you are playing anyway right? Do cool shit, and I will reward your effort and creativity. Do stupid shit, and I will let your actions have their consequences." I've yet to have anybody object to that plan of action for the game.

 

[Redryhno]

DnD isnt just combat though. Its roleplay and its also non-combat challenges. The skills can attest to that. And there is combat in my games, maybe not as much as some, but its there. You seem to think we're just talking going thy and verily.

And I mean, how many stories have you enjoyed, like say, Harry Potter, where you knew Harry, Ron, and Hermoine were going to make it the whole way through? Sure, characters died, but if Harry Potter was a DnD game, those would have been the 3 players.

And not everyone wants to die anyways. I mean, if I was DMing a game with people who prefer combat,, challenge, and death, Id surely deliver. I just think there is too much "should" from you and others in what is supposed to be a system meant for people to do what they want. Thats the whole point, and it only becomes more so with each edition. Hell, its been made apparent to me that 5e is intentionally vague on tons of rules to allow player interpretation even more.

The rules are guidelines for fun, whatever that may be for each party.

Would also add, this specific game initially started with 3 characters who's setup was tailor made for them, with the intention of personal side quests, so I am loathe to kill off say, my brother's character before I did the quest where he discovers his past, since I worked hard on it.

And it would feel unfair to have the later players who dont have so custom a plot to be fodder and basically play favorites just because they were mid-game pickups.

I never said DnD was just combat, just that the last three editions have HEAVILY incentivized it being the central mechanic and theme of a campaign by their skill system somehow lacking more than 2.5 did. And no, I don't think you go that far into it, I just think that if you're going "story, characters, roleplaying", I think something closer to the forum RP's that used to be the main draw for the forums here before they mostly died. I'm just saying there's better systems, all I've ever said when it comes to focusing on characters without the threat of death being around.

Difference with bringing up Potter is that you're talking about...ya know, a book. Not a game. It's a different medium for good reason.Not to mention, it it were a game, Harry's player would honestly be the only one allowed to have consistent fun.

And, yeah, not everyone wants to die, but again, it's DnD, it's set up and expected for players to die and maybe be brought back, it's made with failure in mind. You said yourself you like making up new worlds, and that it's a part of your pride as a DM, what exactly is stopping you from looking at systems with better skill systems and allowing more roleplaying options other than combat and setting the campaign in your own fantasy land?

I mean, one of my favorite campaigns I ever ran was one that used the 2.5 skill system, gave every character the Ranger's monster hate ability(Rangers got a bit better version), and just made it a monster hunting campaign. Lots of roleplaying done through tracking the rumors and interacting with townsfolk that had hired them from Big City McSuburbanville, lots of story through fucking up rolls and ending up in the middle of swamps, but the whole thing was very much geared towards the "boss" battles that were just stronger versions of somewhat common monsters.

And I'm not exactly sure why you're complaining about people telling you "should" when you asked for opinions and what they thought. You're getting answers, so are you just annoyed that you aren't getting the answers you want?

But I'm going to be honest here, putting that much effort into side-stories this early on is sorta not recommended, since you're playing with people, not writing a story and they're going to do things you didn't think up and if you say they can't or you can't handle the ideas they throw at you that easily because you've crafted a tailor-made story, you're going to run into problems in the long run. Not saying it's bad to have an idea going in, just that having much more than the basic framework is either a liability or waste of time the longer you go.

And once again, I'm not telling you to kill characters off willy-nilly, I never said that, I simply said that if the risk/threat of death/"death" isn't something you or your players aren't prepared for, then why are you playing with a system and game that is all about death and combat?

 

[Bombiz]

, then why are you playing with a system and game that is all about death and combat?

It isn't though.

Personally what I really like in DnD is how you can get story to naturally evolve from the randomness of the dice, story that you would never normally get (the giant demi god being getting killed by the bard who just rolled insanely good or the great paladin getting killed by a random rodent). And without failure state combat feel pretty pointless, same for character creation, why bother making an exceptional fighter when an average one will get the same results.

I actually hate that. Especially when it makes no logical sense. Like how does a rodent kill a paladin ? Or how does a group of 12+ people 5 of which are specifically looking out for danger while walking through a flat plain clear of obstructions fail to spot a giant dragon fly or mosquito.

 

[Saelune]

DnD isnt just combat though. Its roleplay and its also non-combat challenges. The skills can attest to that. And there is combat in my games, maybe not as much as some, but its there. You seem to think we're just talking going thy and verily.

And I mean, how many stories have you enjoyed, like say, Harry Potter, where you knew Harry, Ron, and Hermoine were going to make it the whole way through? Sure, characters died, but if Harry Potter was a DnD game, those would have been the 3 players.

And not everyone wants to die anyways. I mean, if I was DMing a game with people who prefer combat,, challenge, and death, Id surely deliver. I just think there is too much "should" from you and others in what is supposed to be a system meant for people to do what they want. Thats the whole point, and it only becomes more so with each edition. Hell, its been made apparent to me that 5e is intentionally vague on tons of rules to allow player interpretation even more.

The rules are guidelines for fun, whatever that may be for each party.

Would also add, this specific game initially started with 3 characters who's setup was tailor made for them, with the intention of personal side quests, so I am loathe to kill off say, my brother's character before I did the quest where he discovers his past, since I worked hard on it.

And it would feel unfair to have the later players who dont have so custom a plot to be fodder and basically play favorites just because they were mid-game pickups.

I never said DnD was just combat, just that the last three editions have HEAVILY incentivized it being the central mechanic and theme of a campaign by their skill system somehow lacking more than 2.5 did. And no, I don't think you go that far into it, I just think that if you're going "story, characters, roleplaying", I think something closer to the forum RP's that used to be the main draw for the forums here before they mostly died. I'm just saying there's better systems, all I've ever said when it comes to focusing on characters without the threat of death being around.

Difference with bringing up Potter is that you're talking about...ya know, a book. Not a game. It's a different medium for good reason.Not to mention, it it were a game, Harry's player would honestly be the only one allowed to have consistent fun.

And, yeah, not everyone wants to die, but again, it's DnD, it's set up and expected for players to die and maybe be brought back, it's made with failure in mind. You said yourself you like making up new worlds, and that it's a part of your pride as a DM, what exactly is stopping you from looking at systems with better skill systems and allowing more roleplaying options other than combat and setting the campaign in your own fantasy land?

I mean, one of my favorite campaigns I ever ran was one that used the 2.5 skill system, gave every character the Ranger's monster hate ability(Rangers got a bit better version), and just made it a monster hunting campaign. Lots of roleplaying done through tracking the rumors and interacting with townsfolk that had hired them from Big City McSuburbanville, lots of story through fucking up rolls and ending up in the middle of swamps, but the whole thing was very much geared towards the "boss" battles that were just stronger versions of somewhat common monsters.

And I'm not exactly sure why you're complaining about people telling you "should" when you asked for opinions and what they thought. You're getting answers, so are you just annoyed that you aren't getting the answers you want?

But I'm going to be honest here, putting that much effort into side-stories this early on is sorta not recommended, since you're playing with people, not writing a story and they're going to do things you didn't think up and if you say they can't or you can't handle the ideas they throw at you that easily because you've crafted a tailor-made story, you're going to run into problems in the long run. Not saying it's bad to have an idea going in, just that having much more than the basic framework is either a liability or waste of time the longer you go.

And once again, I'm not telling you to kill characters off willy-nilly, I never said that, I simply said that if the risk/threat of death/"death" isn't something you or your players aren't prepared for, then why are you playing with a system and game that is all about death and combat?

Im annoyed at getting answers to a question I didnt ask. If someone made a topic about people's favorite ice cream, and instead of saying chocolate, or vanilla, or whatever, they say Ice Cream has to be eaten this way, otherwise you're eating it wrong, it might annoy the OP.

I also think people are off about my DMing. Death is a threat, its just one I try not to make constantly loom over my players. And as for "writing a story" I mostly just try to set it up and facilitate theirs. I do not try to force everything a certain way, and I have adjusted accordingly. Now I prepare little more than a vague mental outline. Hell, what should have been a simple one off side quest before they reached a major city, turned into a series of weird events that took a month of sessions to get through.

I have looked at other systems, and DnD has always been the best for me. 5th Edition even more so, with easier to follow rules, and backgrounds. Infact, I follow the rules far more closely now in 5e than I ever did in 3.5.

Im always trying to improve as a DM. When things go wrong, I try to adjust. How I DM'd my first campaign is far different than the one I am doing now. And the current antagonist I intend on trying something different. The last antagonist I had this whole thing planned, and a player ruined it all with what should have been a one hit kill. Instead I just railroaded it, which is not something I usually do. This next boss though, no special final battle. I am designing it to be where if they defeat them sooner than later, then good for them. Why drag it out? If they dont succeed, then next time they encounter them, the antagonist will be better prepared, and thus they will have to also. Will they abuse fireball? Well, maybe they brought fire protection. Did they swarm them in close combat? Maybe they bring allies that are master at melee combat. I dont know how it will go over, but its worth a shot, and good or bad, hopefully I can improve from it.

Thats why I even made this topic. I dont play with many different people, and what my group does may be way different than any other group, and I wanted a broader view. I just take issue with people acting like there is a right way to enjoy these games.

 

[Saelune]

Depends on the game, the setting, and my character's background. I've played several that would leap into the maw of death, laughing triumphantly the whole time as they did it. Others would make every effort to avoid death, because for them, glory and legacy wasn't important.

Im planning a big event for my next DnD session (should have been today, but no one told me it was cancelled, so I have time to prepare more) and its going to be potentially quite deadly.

I personally do not DM to kill usually, but to give my players the grounds for their story. So I try to not kill my players, but they tend to want greater risk and challenge...until they die anyways.

Im curious what other people feel about dying and the risk of it in table-top RPGs, such as DnD, but really all are fine.

Do you like games/DMs who make the risk of death quite real?

I like games where the possibility is there. If there is zero possibility of death of the character, than any life and death scenario you toss at them is going to be undermined by the knowledge that there really is no risk to them personally. So if you are banking on getting the players nervous about a fight, because "ooh! It's the Big Bad! he's got a mecha-Trex with lazer eyes and a buzzsaw tail!" And they yawn at it...well yeah, you kind of brought that on yourself by letting them know no risk of death exists. If you insist on the No Kill system, you would then have the very unenviable task of trying to get players to give a shit about NPCs. I know, why don't I just ask you to sprout wings and fly right? Maybe the PC's can't die, but if the group of NPC's they've come to know and love are on the chopping block, you might still get some investment from the players in the moment. But, most players don't give a fuck about anyone but themselves and their own PC, so that's a risky gamble in my experience.

Do you prefer that they try to keep you alive?

I prefer they don't actively try and kill me, but I also prefer they don't make everything in the campaign "Baby Safe" either. Give me a chance (reasonable likelihood of survival) for whatever scheme I come up with, and I'm fine. If I die, oh well. Now if I say something like "I want to strap a thermo-nuclear bomb to my chest, and do a HALO jump without a chute, aiming myself into the throat of the giant beast trying to eat that coastal city....then yeah, I'm dead. And any player that tries to say they should survive some plan like that, is a fool. But in that situation, make the death fucking matter. Play up the awesomeness of it, play up how the people of the city see the lone figure "falling like a blazing comet, aimed at the heart of the monstrosity, and in a flash of power and energy, the threat was destroyed. Nobody that lived through that day, will ever forget the person who gave all, so that they could live" Now, if I just do something stupid, and you warn me "there is basically no chance that you can survive that, and it's not really going to accomplish anything anyway" and I still insist on doing it, well, then yeah, kill my ass. There is heroic sacrifice, and then there is just bone stupid suicidal.

How do you feel when its your character that kicks the bucket?

Again, depends on the character and the game. If I'm playing a character, especially some kind of protector/guardian type, then yeah, the idea of dying isn't a problem, and in fact, in some cases I expect it. In fact, in one game, I tried to do a "heroic sacrifice" death, standing against a wave of undead so that the other players, and the VIP NPC could escape. I was set, I was ready for this shit! Bring it on fuckers!!.....but the GM decided he didn't want my PC to die (even though this was the final session), and basically said "your guy escapes". Which really annoyed me. I WANTED to die in that situation. To have my epic ending stolen from me, simply on the basis of "I didn't want to kill your PC", was directly contrary to fun.


Now, you should be sure to establish the ground rules up front. If you plan on the game being highly violent, and having LOTS of chances for death, let them know this. I usually give a little speech to my players at the start of a campaign.

"I'm not actively going to try and kill you, but I'm not going to go out of my way to save you either. Think of this game as an improv play, you guys are the actors, i'm the director. If you all die...the play is over, and my story doesn't get finished. I don't want that, so don't act completely gunshy with every threat. Feel free to be bold and heroic, that's why you are playing anyway right? Do cool shit, and I will reward your effort and creativity. Do stupid shit, and I will let your actions have their consequences." I've yet to have anybody object to that plan of action for the game.

I do not usually have no chance of death. This current campaign started super story driven, even more than usual, but its the exception, not the rule. My very first campaign people died left and right and people had fun, but none of the characters had a backstory tied directly to the plot. Even this one has chance of death, but I am clear about it. One part had a player duel an Orc Chief. I made it clear it would be to the death, and they were fine with that, though they won anyways. And I even tried to win, since I thought it would be interesting if he died.

I only truly actively tried to kill a player once, but it was in the final battle, and the entire character's goal was to have the highest AC possible. Eventually I took it as a challenge, and killed them with a death spell. We still talk about it positively.

Im all for epic moments of sacrifice, but well, my group has a bad case of Chaotic Neutral, and totally not evil, I swear. I think I am capable of noticing these moments and wouldnt want to take away those moments from my players. I want my players to talk about the events even after the campaign is long done.

Ive been learning to try to "roll with the punches". I dont like forcing solutions out of game for in-game actions. I had some good aligned characters act out of alignment. I didnt want to force them to act good, nor just switch their alignment for one misdeed, so I had consequences occur, and then gave them moral dilemmas. They got the message, and a surprise event. Ofcourse, they were free to embrace the dark side if they wished, but atleast it would have been clear. Same if they do stupid things. Id rather have consequences be in-game than out.

Anyways, thank you for your detailed response.

 

[happyninja42]

Im all for epic moments of sacrifice, but well, my group has a bad case of Chaotic Neutral, and totally not evil, I swear.

So basically every gaming group ever who are playing murder hobo's with zero morals. Been there, seen that, got the t-shirt. xD Like I said above, it's pretty easy to rely on the overall selfishness and asshattery of players when trying to anticipate their motivations. Just assume they're going to act like an asshole, and plan accordingly.

Ive been learning to try to "roll with the punches". I dont like forcing solutions out of game for in-game actions. I had some good aligned characters act out of alignment. I didnt want to force them to act good, nor just switch their alignment for one misdeed,

Nor should you. Anakin's fall to Vader-hood wasn't one thing, it was a long decent of bad choices that eventually led to a Really Dick Move.

so I had consequences occur, and then gave them moral dilemmas. They got the message, and a surprise event. Ofcourse, they were free to embrace the dark side if they wished, but atleast it would have been clear. Same if they do stupid things. Id rather have consequences be in-game than out.

Anyways, thank you for your detailed response.

Yeah, it's hard to say "This is what you should do" because it varies based on the player makeup. Some players don't give a fuck about anything, and just Munchkin it up. Wanting awesome stats, and the opportunity to unload their awesome stats in someone's face for self gratification. The min/maxing rogue/ranger with no background, but an absolutely streamlined stat build to be the most lethal fuck alive. This is Type A

Then there's the player, like me, who doesn't really give 2 shits about stats (other than to be at least competent), and doesn't care about gear, and is in it to basically do improvisational acting. I don't care if we get loot, I want to have a fun scene, where I get to ham it up as my character, and do memorable stuff. This is Type B

If you're group is like my group of players (2 guys of the Type A variety), me trying to get them invested in the story is basically a waste of time. They don't really pay it much attention, and just want me to point them at the next encounter. If that's your kind of group, well, you know best how to handle them.

But yeah, in general, death should be possible, but not the most likely outcome, except in specific situations, like duels to the death, or the final couple of episodes, where everything is going to shit, and all bets are off.

Sounds like you have good communication with your players, and have killed them before, and they didn't seem to mind. So I don't think you've got much to worry about.

 

[meiam]

, then why are you playing with a system and game that is all about death and combat?

It isn't though.

Personally what I really like in DnD is how you can get story to naturally evolve from the randomness of the dice, story that you would never normally get (the giant demi god being getting killed by the bard who just rolled insanely good or the great paladin getting killed by a random rodent). And without failure state combat feel pretty pointless, same for character creation, why bother making an exceptional fighter when an average one will get the same results.

I actually hate that. Especially when it makes no logical sense. Like how does a rodent kill a paladin ? Or how does a group of 12+ people 5 of which are specifically looking out for danger while walking through a flat plain clear of obstructions fail to spot a giant dragon fly or mosquito.

Life, that's how. The rodent just get really lucky and hit a vital area, everyone is thinking someone else is looking out a specific direction and no one look at the right location. Life is interesting because it doesn't follow the usual 3 part story we get in every video game/movie/Tv show and so on.

 

[The Madman]

Never had to kill a character but I do think a fight hasn't been properly challenging unless there's at least one party member laying on the ground bleeding out by the end of it. The trick is trying to ensure it isn't always the same party members or they might start to feel bad.

Maybe for a short campaign I might be tempted to let someone die, but generally speaking considering how invested people get in their characters it's pretty cruel to let them die without some form of being able to return. Maybe if the player is in on it or dislikes their character? Dunno, haven't run into that scenario yet.

 

[NeutralDrow]

As a DM, I have incentive to keep my players alive, though they don't necessarily know that (and if I'm doing my job properly, they won't). As a player, I ideally have a vested interest in my character remaining alive (and in non-ideal circumstances, I want them to die awesomely, and/or want to try a new character concept). Character death improperly used feels to me like the ultimate shaggy dog story, and trying to recreate a character who's story hadn't finished is a major immersion breaker.

Also mildly sick of the argument that "no/little risk of death" automatically translates to "no challenge." I feel compelled to point out that death is not the only possible failure condition.

 

[Satinavian]

Im annoyed at getting answers to a question I didnt ask. If someone made a topic about people's favorite ice cream, and instead of saying chocolate, or vanilla, or whatever, they say Ice Cream has to be eaten this way, otherwise you're eating it wrong, it might annoy the OP.

Most people did answer your question in addition to giving their opinion about D&D.

What is more, context is important. People feel different about death in different kind of games. And the answer is useless if they don't add what kind of game they are playing. And yes, not only system, but how it is actually played.

Now, about advice ... again, we can't really give advice without knowing your kind of game. From D&D alone people assumed "combat- heavy", not "roleplay-heavy" because most people use other systems for the later (if they know any). Obviously that assumption was wrong. But we still don't really know how your games are and how we would feel, if we died there.


I mean, you haven't even told us, if death is usually final in your games or if the afterlife gets a revolving door as soon as you reach mid levels. Obviously that will have an impact. We also don't know, how long (in game sessions) your characters are played if they don't die. How long is the campaign ? Obviously this will have an impact.

And we know nearly nothing about your players and what they want out of the game. Ok, they want greater risks ... Why ? Are they adrenalin-junkies who get bored without constant danger the players recognize as such ? Don't they feel challanged as solutions are seen to easy and the outcome of combats is obvious before those started ? Are they drama-queens who want their characters to suffer for agony, angst and other "roleplaying opportunities" ? Maybe they just notice that you try to avoid killing the PCs and are too proud to tolerate that ? Again, obviously that will make a huge difference.

I have looked at other systems, and DnD has always been the best for me. 5th Edition even more so, with easier to follow rules, and backgrounds. Infact, I follow the rules far more closely now in 5e than I ever did in 3.5.

I won't try to convince you otherwise. If it works for you, then fine. But you should understand that most other posters see the strengths and weaknesses of D&D differently and that comes with lots of wrong assumptions about your game which have to be clarified. Which you did.


Now there is also interesting stuff about alignments, murder hobos, heroic sacrifices... but i'll avoid derailing the thread if you are not also interested in a discussion about that.

Thats why I even made this topic. I dont play with many different people, and what my group does may be way different than any other group, and I wanted a broader view. I just take issue with people acting like there is a right way to enjoy these games.

Two years ago we had a discussion in one of my TDE groups about how to handle death. the players wishes were :

P1 : There should be always risk of death, otherwise it is boring. And always according to the rules, how stupid the death may be. DM fudging is a no go.
P2 : Risk of death is fine, but the risk should be small and players should be able to mitigate it further and get the tools to do so. Still no DM fudging ever, the DM should just stick to the rules and what he prepared and the consequences thereof.
P3 : PCs should not die, but they should be regularly maimed or deprived of their hopes and pretty much never achieve their goals. Rules should take a backseat to drama and the DM should adjust any outcome of a role to make the most dramatic story.
P4 : PCs should die, but only in big events and things like heroic sacrifices or the culmination of the plot. The DM should fudge to make sure.

Yes, we did find a way to solve that. Would this way remotely be even remotely useful for your group ? I seriously doubt it. It's not even useful for my other gaming groups.

 

[Saelune]

Im annoyed at getting answers to a question I didnt ask. If someone made a topic about people's favorite ice cream, and instead of saying chocolate, or vanilla, or whatever, they say Ice Cream has to be eaten this way, otherwise you're eating it wrong, it might annoy the OP.

Most people did answer your question in addition to giving their opinion about D&D.

What is more, context is important. People feel different about death in different kind of games. And the answer is useless if they don't add what kind of game they are playing. And yes, not only system, but how it is actually played.

Now, about advice ... again, we can't really give advice without knowing your kind of game. From D&D alone people assumed "combat- heavy", not "roleplay-heavy" because most people use other systems for the later (if they know any). Obviously that assumption was wrong. But we still don't really know how your games are and how we would feel, if we died there.


I mean, you haven't even told us, if death is usually final in your games or if the afterlife gets a revolving door as soon as you reach mid levels. Obviously that will have an impact. We also don't know, how long (in game sessions) your characters are played if they don't die. How long is the campaign ? Obviously this will have an impact.

And we know nearly nothing about your players and what they want out of the game. Ok, they want greater risks ... Why ? Are they adrenalin-junkies who get bored without constant danger the players recognize as such ? Don't they feel challanged as solutions are seen to easy and the outcome of combats is obvious before those started ? Are they drama-queens who want their characters to suffer for agony, angst and other "roleplaying opportunities" ? Maybe they just notice that you try to avoid killing the PCs and are too proud to tolerate that ? Again, obviously that will make a huge difference.

I have looked at other systems, and DnD has always been the best for me. 5th Edition even more so, with easier to follow rules, and backgrounds. Infact, I follow the rules far more closely now in 5e than I ever did in 3.5.

I won't try to convince you otherwise. If it works for you, then fine. But you should understand that most other posters see the strengths and weaknesses of D&D differently and that comes with lots of wrong assumptions about your game which have to be clarified. Which you did.


Now there is also interesting stuff about alignments, murder hobos, heroic sacrifices... but i'll avoid derailing the thread if you are not also interested in a discussion about that.

Thats why I even made this topic. I dont play with many different people, and what my group does may be way different than any other group, and I wanted a broader view. I just take issue with people acting like there is a right way to enjoy these games.

Two years ago we had a discussion in one of my TDE groups about how to handle death. the players wishes were :

P1 : There should be always risk of death, otherwise it is boring. And always according to the rules, how stupid the death may be. DM fudging is a no go.
P2 : Risk of death is fine, but the risk should be small and players should be able to mitigate it further and get the tools to do so. Still no DM fudging ever, the DM should just stick to the rules and what he prepared and the consequences thereof.
P3 : PCs should not die, but they should be regularly maimed or deprived of their hopes and pretty much never achieve their goals. Rules should take a backseat to drama and the DM should adjust any outcome of a role to make the most dramatic story.
P4 : PCs should die, but only in big events and things like heroic sacrifices or the culmination of the plot. The DM should fudge to make sure.

Yes, we did find a way to solve that. Would this way remotely be even remotely useful for your group ? I seriously doubt it. It's not even useful for my other gaming groups.

I wasnt explicitly looking for advice for my specific game. I just wanted a broader view to hopefully improve my DMing. I already intend on letting all my players come out of it alive. It might require some side-questing, searching for special healing and resurrection, I just know my players dont always mean what they say, and half of them tend to be selfish. The more I look back at my group's campaigns, both with me DMing or playing death happens frequently enough. This one specific campaign is just more character focused, and their deaths would ultimately make the plot moot.

I just want to know more about other people's play styles and desires as a player. If I was DMing a game where everyone wanted everything by the rules, no fudging, no do-overs, etc, then I would accommodate that. If I was DMing a game where no one wanted to die at all, I would accommodate that. But I dont play with as diverse types of players as I would like, being mostly limited to my real life friends. I do look forward to playing with others though and adapting accordingly.

 

[Zykon TheLich_v1legacy]

My experience is pretty much all with high lethality systems. Cyberpunk 2020 and Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay (and a bit of Dark Heresy), but there are ways to make things less of a slaughterfest.

Cyberpunk generally involves lots of GM guidance in the "you are about to do something incredibly stupid" stakes, especially with new players who are used to the "kill them and take their stuff" type games.
Slightly future medicine being what it is and Cyberpunk being primarily urban based they're generally close to a hospital too, so if they aren't reduced to paste and you're feeling nice you can fudge the NPC medics' dice rolls (if needed)so that they survive but still learn the lesson.

After a year or two I generally started doing low combat games. Being the 'real world' but with a few more cool toys, it felt easier to come up with ideas for what to do for non-combat challenges and the published books were pretty good on that account too. Much more investigating, organising, working with people etc. Combat was possible (and some players just go looking for a fight anyway) but getting to your goal while avoiding combat was the best way to go.

Finally I changed the way luck worked to be used to alter any dice roll 1 for 1 as and when needed, so the random 7.62mm to the face was less likely to leave you missing most of your head.


Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay and Dark Heresy have the Fate Point mechanic which are basically your characters lives so on average they have to be "killed" 3 times to kill them permanently and they will tend to accrue psychological and permanent physical damage along the way. So generally by the time they're permanently dead they've been through the wars a bit anyway and death has been on the cards for a while. Plus, it's Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay, going insane and dying of dysentery in the gutter is pretty much expected.

EDIT:

I just want to know more about other people's play styles and desires as a player.

Oh...guess I answered wrong then.

Yeah, there should be risk of dying, but taking that risk should be up to me (and the rest of the group...no, actually, fuck those guys, they're idiots, the decision is all mine! MIIIINE!!).
Don't make me march off into the forest to fight a horde of beastmen when all I really want to do is grub around Marienburg trying to make some quick cash in a slightly nefarious manner. Sure, I might get killed if I manage to piss off the wrong people but it's a worst possible outcome sort of thing rather than the default fail state.

 

[Bombiz]

, then why are you playing with a system and game that is all about death and combat?

It isn't though.

Personally what I really like in DnD is how you can get story to naturally evolve from the randomness of the dice, story that you would never normally get (the giant demi god being getting killed by the bard who just rolled insanely good or the great paladin getting killed by a random rodent). And without failure state combat feel pretty pointless, same for character creation, why bother making an exceptional fighter when an average one will get the same results.

I actually hate that. Especially when it makes no logical sense. Like how does a rodent kill a paladin ? Or how does a group of 12+ people 5 of which are specifically looking out for danger while walking through a flat plain clear of obstructions fail to spot a giant dragon fly or mosquito.

Life, that's how. The rodent just get really lucky and hit a vital area, everyone is thinking someone else is looking out a specific direction and no one look at the right location. Life is interesting because it doesn't follow the usual 3 part story we get in every video game/movie/Tv show and so on.

@Meiam
That still doesn't make sense though. Especially since we got attacked by a flying insect before so we where looking out for that in an open area. Especially since in real life those insects are relatively noticeable (especially dragonflys) when they're SMALL. Imagine a giant one. You'd hear that shit from a mile a way.

Life is interesting

You know what's interesting? Being unconscious and bleeding out for ~25 rounds. You what's more interesting? Dieing due to inflict minor wounds. You know what's the most interesting? Getting only 2rounds of actual play in 2-3hours and staying up till 1or2am.

And what vital area would the rat hit that would cause the paladin to die almost instantly? The rat would need either need to jump onto the paladin or crawl up them.

 

[Laxer]

For me this is an impossible question to answer due to the wildly different types of tabletop roleplaying games that I've played over the years. Each system has its' own distinctive feel and underlying thought. This is true for different types of campaigns within the same system as well. Sometimes I play campaigns where character development is the most important component, in which case a sudden character death due to a bad roll isn't just unnecessary, it runs contrary to the whole purpose of the game. In such campaigns I, as a game master, either avoid combat altogether, present viable alternatives or have a mechanism for failure that doesn't include death.

On the other hand I often play campaigns that are challenges for the players. My current campaign, for example, centers around a colonization effort in a wild and untamed land filled with beasts and primitives. Stepping on the wrong toes or heedlessly walking into a dangerous part of the forest can be extremely dangerous and my players know this and play by it. They act carefully, try to make friends and avoid danger and combat at all costs unless they can stack the odds in their favour with preparation, planning and overwhelming force. Without the constant fear of permanent character death they wouldn't feel as challenged and the campaign would be vastly different. The players arn't as attached to their individual characters here but moreso towards the overall arch of story involving all of their characters and backups and the challenge of the 'game' aspect.

 

[aegix drakan_v1legacy]

As long as you make it clear that "You might not make it. There is a very real chance of permadeath" when leading into the scenario, and if you're really merciful allow people who don't want in to not play, there should be absolutely no problem.

I'm part of a Call of Cthulu LARP and that happened to us literally last night. GM goes "This is the penultimate game. The way this whole story ends depends on you. You CAN get a happy ending, well...For a given value of happy, you've all lost something here. But tonight is a choke point. One where your desires clash with the desires of another force, far stronger than you. Not all of you will pass through it. If you want to get your shit together, there is a high-terror high danger thing you can attempt to kill, and probably die trying against. For squishier people, there are hostages you can save, where Terror Level is no concern and where you're a little LESS likely to die in vain attempts to save people. Or you can hide at the bar all game. The choice is yours."

Surprisingly, no players died in the end. One is gravely injured and needs hospital treatment, and one is in a full-on coma, but no one is dead. And we killed the thing AND saved the hostages, primarily because everyone went where they were supposed to go (IE, the mechanic who has a "I can make mechanical miracles happen once a month" thing came to save the hostages and was able to shut of an otherwise not-shut-off-able murder floodgate, the I-can-choke-out-a-moose-with-my-bare-hands-florist-lady went to harpoon the giant monster with her husband the psychologist who can shield someone from sanity damage once per game who used it to get her in striking range).

The GM told me afterwards that she expected at least a quarter of us to die, but we actually managed to get the right people in the right places to make the exact right calls. Knowing that makes winning all the sweeter.