Early-Level TPKs: Why?

[quinron]

5e has become pretty well-known for being utterly lethal at low levels. Accepting this as a given - monsters always fight till dead, they won't let PCs leave a fight alive - why do so many DMs decide to kill characters?

I understand the enemies making the choice to knock out characters. But there's a 50/50 chance that those characters will stabilize in 3 rounds rather than dying; to have a true 100% TPK as opposed to just knocking out all the PCs, the monsters have to be consciously killing downed PCs rather than just leaving them to bleed out.

What happened to monsters taking prisoners? Sure, savage humanoids like gnolls and non-humanoid creatures would be more likely to kill, but the typical first-level flunkies are goblins and kobolds - these are exactly the kind of mischievous little snots that would take prisoners, either to sacrifice or to ransom.

A TPK can be fun if everyone's on board, if the party are going out in a blaze of glory; getting beaten to death by 1/4 Challenge mooks isn't glorious.

[Kryx]

A TPK can be fun if everyone's on board, if the party are going out in a blaze of glory; getting beaten to death by 1/4 Challenge mooks isn't glorious.
Some people play D&D for gritty realism and don't need moments of glory for a character to die. This is one of the refreshing factors of Game of Thrones and something that we as a community can benefit from.

That said at low levels there is a higher risk of dying. I'd suggest starting with 1 higher level of hp until 3rd level if you choose to play 1st and 2nd level.

[Democratus]

It's also very easy to roll up a new character in 5th edition.

In some particularly deadly campaigns we bring along several PCs per player and the survivors of the first few levels end up being the protagonists.

[JackPhoenix]

Every fight should have "Why?". What's the goal of the opposite side? Hungry beasts fight to kill, and eat the prey afterward. Bandits or cultists defending their hidden lair should take captives... either to interrogate them how they found out their hideout, or to sacrifice them, or something. Thieves may be uniterested in killing... they want your money, they don't want to fight you... unless they have a good reason to eliminate witnesses. Orcs and similar may or may not want captives... either as slaves, for ransom or for other reasons... but they may not care if their victim survives or not. Still alive after the battle? Good. Dead? Meh, whatever. Kobolds or goblins defending their young may overcome their usual cowardice and fight to the death... but their goal is to drive the enemy away, not sacrifice themselves to kill them.

[Stan]

To me, the issue to watch for is not TPKs. It's the unlucky instakills at 1st level. After a few levels, you're unlikely to take so much damage that you go to negative equal to your hp. But for 1st level, all it takes is a tight spot where you get down a few hp and don't get healed instantly then get hit by a crit with a good roll on the damage.

3e has the opposite problem. At higher levels, it's easy for a big hit to shoot right past that 0 to -10 window. But with 5e, the deaths are likely to occur at levels when the party is too poor for raise dead.

[MrFahrenheit]

I always make sure my players have a backup character ready. One player particularly prone to character death now has to have two backups. Even though 5e is easy for making new characters, it still definitely helps the DM with regards to table time to have this stuff ready to go.

As for why your campaign is so deadly, I can only speculate, but three possible reasons come to mind:

1. Your DM is either new altogether, or at least new to 5e, or...
2. Your DM wants to show that no one is safe, to include the entire party, or...
3. Your DM is really, really fond of the character creation process.

What were some of the circumstances surrounding the tpk? Some tougher battles are meant to be retreated from, while others are meant to be fair but deadly. A series of battles with no or few tests can be just as deadly, too.

[Longcat]

How many DMs have the enemies confirm kills, by attacking unconscious characters? I've DM'd a fight where the same character rolled a natural 20 three times in a row after she was downed, and it had me wondering. In a world where healing magic is common and second winds are a 5% chance, I reckon anyone genre savvy would confirm a kill when it is convenient.

[Socratov]

I always make sure my players have a backup character ready. One player particularly prone to character death now has to have two backups. Even though 5e is easy for making new characters, it still definitely helps the DM with regards to table time to have this stuff ready to go.

As for why your campaign is so deadly, I can only speculate, but three possible reasons come to mind:

1. Your DM is either new altogether, or at least new to 5e, or...
2. Your DM wants to show that no one is safe, to include the entire party, or...
3. Your DM is really, really fond of the character creation process.

What were some of the circumstances surrounding the tpk? Some tougher battles are meant to be retreated from, while others are meant to be fair but deadly. A series of battles with no or few tests can be just as deadly, too.

4. The DM has rolled more natural 20's in this fight and all previous fights combined
5. levels 1-3 are really deadly where one crit can ruin your day form full to death saves
6. the players make a stupid decision (that is why higher level adventurers should be portreaied as savvy indiviuals (http://wiki.lspace.org/mediawiki/Silver_Horde))

[ad_hoc]

Keep in mind that levels 1 and 2 are only meant to last 1 session each.

I think the 'apprentice' levels are great. They give the feeling of being low level and encourage stories about being clever/lucky in overcoming obstacles.

I allow TPKs to happen at any level but I don't get very many at levels 1 and 2 because I prefer for those adventures to be more about problem solving.

[BW022]

5e has become pretty well-known for being utterly lethal at low levels.

So were almost all editions of D&D. In basic and 1E, wizards have d4 hit points, only had one spell per day, and it sucked. They also needed 2,500xp to reach 2nd-level. 5E is a lot less lethal at low-levels -- less XP to rather higher levels, more powerful spells, more hit points on weaker characters, and much harder to die (repeated con checks gives a lot of time to save someone).



Accepting this as a given - monsters always fight till dead, they won't let PCs leave a fight alive - why do so many DMs decide to kill characters?


Maybe just your experience. I rarely encounter DMs wanting to kill off low-level characters. There is little point in doing so. You might wish to discuss a TPK with your DM and see if there is a reason for this -- inexperience with encounters, doesn't want to DM, wants to start another campaign, players are just excessively stupid, she was expecting the players to avoid/negotiate/bribe their way past the encounter, etc.



What happened to monsters taking prisoners? Sure, savage humanoids like gnolls and non-humanoid creatures would be more likely to kill, but the typical first-level flunkies are goblins and kobolds - these are exactly the kind of mischievous little snots that would take prisoners, either to sacrifice or to ransom.


How often do PCs take prisoners? Not often. It is a hassle. Most encounters aren't going to take prisoners. Animals, monsters, undead, etc. are not going to. Monstrous humanoids (giants, trolls, gnolls, etc.) likely aren't going to either. They don't really have the option of typically getting ransom baring some alliance/leader who can deliver messages and a political situation where the ruler/leader of the area doesn't march 500 troops to slaughter the group. A few might take slaves... but most would do like PCs -- kill them.

I don't have creatures take prisoners unless it is obvious they would do so. If I completely mess up an encounter, it is more realistic to just have some nearby ranger join the fight to save the PCs than expect that some trolls aren't going to put the unconscious PCs on the BBQ.



A TPK can be fun if everyone's on board, if the party are going out in a blaze of glory; getting beaten to death by 1/4 Challenge mooks isn't glorious.

Some chance of death is part of the game. Without it... players act stupidly or metagame that they won't die. It is necessary to allow survivable encounter where players have to negotiate, avoid, get help for, etc. They add a sense of fear, challenge, and accomplishment. IMO, expecting to survive after being dropped... is a bad lesson to teach any players.

As a DM, I like giving parties a "get out of jail free" item at low levels. Say a patron gives the party a scroll of conjure animals or a wand with three charges of cure wounds (at 3rd-level). In this way, players are loathed to use it, but it is sufficient to get them past an encounter which wasn't scaled correctly for them. Far better having a reasonable way of surviving an encounter other than just taking prisoners -- who all of a sudden are somehow able to escape.

[pwykersotz]

Short answer, one of the critical flaws of D&D as a primary roleplaying system as opposed to a combat one is that there's no default way to incentivize leaving your enemies alive. This is true on both sides.

Imagine if you only got 1/10 monster exp if you killed them. And imagine a system where monsters wanted exp from the party too. You'd see a lot less killing.

I'm not saying it's impossible or even difficult for a table to incentivize leaving enemies alive, but it's not a default part of 5e.

[MrFahrenheit]

I had a bear totem barbarian player attempt to jump over four grick alphas and an intellect devourer to grab a magical halberd on the other side. The grick alphas each AoO'ed him, and the intellect devoured hit him with psychic on its turn. He was KO'ed. On the Gricks' turn they feasted on his innards.

They could've ignored him after the KO, but there were two reasons why they didn't:
1. They're only quasi intelligent. I figured they would try to kill before moving on to the next party member. As he was incapacitated, this made things only worse for him. And...
2. The player made a really dumb decision in ignoring the obvious threat.

Did I mention this was the first character death of a player who's now had four? The player's style is about as opposite of risk averse as you can get. And he enjoys the creation process, so we all have a good time, which, at the end of the day, is the most important thing.

Only one other player in my campaign has had a character die, and it was a good, middle-of-battle-versus-mind flayers-death. The group is levels 13 and 14, and I've been DMing them since level 1.

[mephnick]

How many DMs have the enemies confirm kills, by attacking unconscious characters? I've DM'd a fight where the same character rolled a natural 20 three times in a row after she was downed, and it had me wondering. In a world where healing magic is common and second winds are a 5% chance, I reckon anyone genre savvy would confirm a kill when it is convenient.

Pretty much.

I have intelligent/ruthless enemies kill KO'd PCs if they can. Everyone in a D&D world knows any healing can raise that guy behind you to attack you again, why would you ever not take one more stab at a downed enemy if you can? It's objectively stupid not to.

I have hungry animals abandon the fight to drag off a prone or KO'd PC to eat. On the other hand a raging, mindless creature will probably switch to a moving target.

It's really just a matter of running my world as honestly as I can. Other DM's fudge dice and switch targets for the sake of the story and that's fine, but it's not my style.

[jas61292]

I had a bear totem barbarian player attempt to jump over four grick alphas and an intellect devourer to grab a magical halberd on the other side. The grick alphas each AoO'ed him, and the intellect devoured hit him with psychic on its turn. He was KO'ed. On the Gricks' turn they feasted on his innards.

They could've ignored him after the KO, but there were two reasons why they didn't:
1. They're only quasi intelligent. I figured they would try to kill before moving on to the next party member. As he was incapacitated, this made things only worse for him. And...
2. The player made a really dumb decision in ignoring the obvious threat.

Did I mention this was the first character death of a player who's now had four? The player's style is about as opposite of risk averse as you can get. And he enjoys the creation process, so we all have a good time, which, at the end of the day, is the most important thing.

Only one other player in my campaign has had a character die, and it was a good, middle-of-battle-versus-mind flayers-death. The group is levels 13 and 14, and I've been DMing them since level 1.

The type of player definitely has a lot to do with these kinda things. I have a player that sounds similar to yours who is very rarely cautious (to say the least), and very much enjoys character creation. Looking at my last two major campaigns that I have run, he went through 9 different characters, while everyone else combined had a total of 6.

Ultimately, as you said, its about enjoying yourself. This player enjoys trying all sorts of different things, while my other players enjoy developing individual characters more. And while I'm certainly not one to pull any punches, if everyone can handle that and still get what they want out of the game, then I call it successful.

[MrFahrenheit]

Dont forget that later level character deaths aren't as uncommon as you might think. Some boss monsters, such as mind flayers and beholders, have insta-kill attacks that only require the target be at 0 hp, thus circumventing the entire death mechanic.

[Mr.Moron]

How many DMs have the enemies confirm kills, by attacking unconscious characters? I've DM'd a fight where the same character rolled a natural 20 three times in a row after she was downed, and it had me wondering. In a world where healing magic is common and second winds are a 5% chance, I reckon anyone genre savvy would confirm a kill when it is convenient.

Only in the opponents have an active interest in killing the opponents.

Generally speaking. Raiders like Bandits/Goblins just want stuff and PCs are and impediment to that stuff. If they down the PCs they're going to start looting and bug off once their pockets are full. A round spent double-tapping PCs is a round not spent collecting valuable shiny things, and hauling off goats.

Bestial monsters are usually defending their territory more than anything else. If you get stuck in a giant spider web sure it's going to eat you but you average angry owlbear or whatever is content that you've got limp and isn't going to check for a pulse.

At the end of the day unless you're dealing with a political enemy, fanatics or a recurring BBEG most NPCs are going to have their own goals. Those goals aren't "Kill those guys" and conflict only occurs when the PCs become impediments to those goals.

Certainly if a PC has made an enemy of an intelligent opponent who has a goal of "Kill that PC in particular", they're going to try to do that. However I've generally found such a opponents are more the exception than the rule. Though perhaps that's just a side-effect of the kind of adventures I've typically run.

[Vogonjeltz]

5e has become pretty well-known for being utterly lethal at low levels. Accepting this as a given - monsters always fight till dead, they won't let PCs leave a fight alive - why do so many DMs decide to kill characters?

I think it depends on the fight as to why an NPC would or wouldn't let their opponent live.

Barroom brawl where players and opponents only used fists/stools or whatever was to hand? Opposition probably doesn't murder anyone as long as the PCs didn't either. Maybe the watch breaks it up and everyone ends up in the drunk tank. Maybe the PCs just find themselves waking up in the gutter without any weapons or other casual items (armor probably takes long enough to remove that enemies wouldn't bother).

Reasons to slay the PCs:
Mortal enemies? Killed a friend? PCs initiated the combat and presumably planned to kill the NPCs? All reasons to not allow the PCs to live.

That being said, there might be mitigating circumstances:

Foes are Lawful and there is a legal system in place for dealing with criminals...maybe the PCs become prisoners to be taken to the local magistrate for their crime(s).

Enemies have been told to take the PCs prisoner, or simply want to interrogate them before disposing of any bodies.

The starter set module, for example, provides DM guidance on what to do in some scenarios if the PCs get hosed by dangerous fights they are likely to lose, but which are mandatory for the story. Typically these involve fairly civilized fights, or highway robbery, in which case the answer is: Let the PCs live by waking up bereft of their gear. They can go try and resupply in a town using credit and then try to recover their equipment or move on with their lives.

[MrFahrenheit]

Only in the opponents have an active interest in killing the opponents.

Generally speaking. Raiders like Bandits/Goblins just want stuff and PCs are and impediment to that stuff. If they down the PCs they're going to start looting and bug off once their pockets are full. A round spent double-tapping PCs is a round not spent collecting valuable shiny things, and hauling off goats.

Bestial monsters are usually defending their territory more than anything else. If you get stuck in a giant spider web sure it's going to eat you but you average angry owlbear or whatever is content that you've got limp and isn't going to check for a pulse.

At the end of the day unless you're dealing with a political enemy, fanatics or a recurring BBEG most NPCs are going to have their own goals. Those goals aren't "Kill those guys" and conflict only occurs when the PCs become impediments to those goals.

Certainly if a PC has made an enemy of an intelligent opponent who has a goal of "Kill that PC in particular", they're going to try to do that. However I've generally found such a opponents are more the exception than the rule. Though perhaps that's just a side-effect of the kind of adventures I've typically run.

Everything said here, plus I'd add in that from a metagaming perspective as a DM, too many character deaths harms the consistency of the story. Like if one new guy shows up after an old friend perishes, fine, but if you keep having new guys show up, you lose out on secrets the old party members discovered, experiences and other plot recollections. Not to mention that given the campaign, it may be hard to rationalize newer characters caring about the ultimate objective of the old party. Especially if the newbies outnumber the old guys.

[mephnick]

Generally speaking. Raiders like Bandits/Goblins just want stuff and PCs are and impediment to that stuff. If they down the PCs they're going to start looting and bug off once their pockets are full. A round spent double-tapping PCs is a round not spent collecting valuable shiny things, and hauling off goats

Human bandits are also probably smart enough to understand it will be a lot easier to take stuff if their targets aren't being instantly healed out of unconsciousness by beginner magic that everyone is aware of. Although they'll also be smart enough to realize they're outclassed within the first few seconds of combat and possibly take off, so enemy intelligence can work for or against the party.

[Mr.Moron]

Everything said here, plus I'd add in that from a metagaming perspective as a DM, too many character deaths harms the consistency of the story. Like if one new guy shows up after an old friend perishes, fine, but if you keep having new guys show up, you lose out on secrets the old party members discovered, experiences and other plot recollections. Not to mention that given the campaign, it may be hard to rationalize newer characters caring about the ultimate objective of the old party. Especially if the newbies outnumber the old guys.

Going along these lines on a different angle PC death is simply the least interesting possible outcome in a situation. If a PC dies there is generally one result*: The PC gets replaced.

If a PC gets downed but not killed there are any number of interesting things that can happen.

They can wind up stranded from the group and you have a survival side-adventure to do.
They can wind up captured and you have a rescue adventure to do.
They can wind up with a vendetta, giving more RP chances.
They can wind up owing another PC their life, giving more RP chances.
They can wind up with some injury or other complication they have to deal with from now on.


This kind of goes all the more so for possible TPK situations. There just isn't much in a TPK to drive engagement in most cases. Unless a TPK is the only plausible or remotely reasonable outcome to a situation there isn't much to be gained from having one.

If rocks fall, sure everyone can die. That's reasonable falling rocks are deadly. It's also reasonable that rocks fall, everyone gets trapped in dark unknown cave with only the supplies they have on them and no map. I'd put forward since the latter is by far the option with more room for engagement it's probably the better one to go with when you wind up with situation where rocks have fallen.


EDIT:* Or gets resurrected, if high level enough and using the standard-model revolving door after afterlife.



Human bandits are also probably smart enough to understand it will be a lot easier to take stuff if their targets aren't being instantly healed out of unconsciousness by beginner magic that everyone is aware of. Although they'll also be smart enough to realize they're outclassed within the first few seconds of combat and possibly take off, so enemy intelligence can work for or against the party.

Maybe. If you sat them down for a war room discussion of the battle afterwards. We were after all talking about a situation where all the PCs have been taken out and so nobody is going to be casting spells to bring anyone back. When the whole party is bleeding out on the floor, they're going to let them.

In combat.. it's a hectic thing. Generally speaking bandits are untrained, poor and used to making routine assaults that happen without any conflict at all. Jump out fire a few arrows, brandish your swords merchants give up their goods. Bandits don't attack when they're expecting a stand-up fight. That the PCs are even fighting back is a surprise generally. This might lead to them making like Zoidberg as you suggested but let's assume they stick in the fight.

The average merchant wagon doesn't have attendant magic users, and there's like a dude with a sword swinging them at them, arrows flying and that other guy with magic is literally shooting beams of pure fire at them. It's not the kind of cool-headed situation where they can go "Hold on there. Let's finish off this dude in case that one dude over there maybe is a cleric perhaps and walks over here to maybe get his buddy back in the fight", these are not Super-Soldier green berets. They are just a bunch of small-time criminals, mostly young dudes unable to carve out living otherwise. Once they down you their most immediate thought is "Holy ****. That guy has an Axe and is really angry" as Bill, the party barbarian is still very much up and still very much in charge range of him.

This is even assuming you're running the general workings as being common knowledge among the masses. I'd say in most games I've run your average destitute, illiterate 15-year old that's hooked up with a band of highwaymen to get some food, a whiskey ration and maybe some spending money is not at all aware that clerics can turn a battle into a game of whack-a-mole.

[Laereth]

Maybe. If you sat them down for a war room discussion of the battle afterwards. We were after all talking about a situation where all the PCs have been taken out and so nobody is going to be casting spells to bring anyone back. When the whole party is bleeding out on the floor, they're going to let them.

In combat.. it's a hectic thing. Generally speaking bandits are untrained, poor and used to making routine assaults that happen without any conflict at all. Jump out fire a few arrows, brandish your swords merchants give up their goods. Bandits don't attack when they're expecting a stand-up fight. That the PCs are even fighting back is a surprise generally. This might lead to them making like Zoidberg as you suggested but let's assume they stick in the fight.

The average merchant wagon doesn't have attendant magic users, and there's like a dude with a sword swinging them at them, arrows flying and that other guy with magic is literally shooting beams of pure fire at them. It's not the kind of cool-headed situation where they can go "Hold on there. Let's finish off this dude in case that one dude over there maybe is a cleric perhaps and walks over here to maybe get his buddy back in the fight", these are not Super-Soldier green berets. They are just a bunch of small-time criminals, mostly young dudes unable to carve out living otherwise. Once they down you their most immediate thought is "Holy ****. That guy has an Axe and is really angry" as Bill, the party barbarian is still very much up and still very much in charge range of him.

This is even assuming you're running the general workings as being common knowledge among the masses. I'd say in most games I've run your average destitute, illiterate 15-year old that's hooked up with a band of highwaymen to get some food, a whiskey ration and maybe some spending money is not at all aware that clerics can turn a battle into a game of whack-a-mole.

So much this. It is one thing to play the enemies intelligently and another to play them to character.

Having every intelligent humanoid stab downed foes during combat comes off at the same level of metagaming that DMs generally frown at when players do it.

Also this piece by the AngryGM relates to PC death : http://theangrygm.com/death-sucks/

[Pex]

TPKs, even an individual character's death, ought to be rare with TPKs a lot more rare than a character's death. If you experience just one TPK in your entire gaming life or lost two characters to death individually, consider that normal. If in your games character death or TPKs are happening a lot, while there is the possibility the players and/or DM are Honest True making an innocent mistake somewhere (tactics, encounter design, etc.) it is also possible due to player True Stupidity or the DM just hates his players and relishes killing off PCs thinking if he doesn't kill off a PC at a regular interval he's failing as a DM.

If it's the former, hopefully the player will learn. If the player is being purposely obtuse about it being Leeroy Jenkins for everything and not caring how others are affected or even because of it, he needs to go bye-bye. If the latter, the DM needs to be told to knock it off or he needs to go bye-bye. It is never the DM's job to kill off PCs. It is never something he should be cheering or hoping to achieve. Any DM who boasts about his PC kill count is not a DM worth playing under.

[Telok]

1. Lack of a morale mechanic. There is nothing to remind DMs that sometimes creatures and people don't want to die. If a DM is inexperienced or forgets then even normal animals become heroic-last-stand-death-machines.

2. Inability to flee. Without any rules or guidelines for parties breaking off combat and running away everything defaults to movement speeds. Monsters are usually base human speed or faster, characters are usually base human speed or slower. Considering only the given rules escape is often impossible.

3. Culture. In video games, which influence gamer culture, AIs aren't programmed to retreat or take prisoners (writing a good AI is difficult). By contrast most of us live in urban areas with no hostile wildlife or bandit-with-sword raids, so much of our conflict experience is with creatures that are sick, cognitively impared, or sudden death. So we don't have experiences with surrender or escaping combat after it starts, the normal experience is escaping without fighting or fighting to the death.

4. Players having pen and paper characters act like video game characters. In video games death has no sting. Reload, save point, multiple lives, respawn. In extreme examples you have PCs with no personality or story, just stats and a number for a name.

Strangely I saw fewer TPKs back in AD&D than I do these days. Just player attitude about not fighting everything and trying not to die made a big difference.

[RickAllison]

Everything said here, plus I'd add in that from a metagaming perspective as a DM, too many character deaths harms the consistency of the story. Like if one new guy shows up after an old friend perishes, fine, but if you keep having new guys show up, you lose out on secrets the old party members discovered, experiences and other plot recollections. Not to mention that given the campaign, it may be hard to rationalize newer characters caring about the ultimate objective of the old party. Especially if the newbies outnumber the old guys.

So much this. In a Star Wars campaign I ran, the entire main story disappeared because the only person who still knew all the information from the original party (I didn't kill any of them. One killed himself, one left to join a war, one gave up hope, and one was shipped off to an asylum because he went insane) was a droid only interested in a droid revolution that very much resembled Lenin's (and another PC already had a character set up to be his Stalin!), that story arc never got resolved.

Unfortunately, that meant the galaxy is now being terrorized by a droid dragon the size of a planet from before recorded history. Makes for a great plot hook for next season! And I feel that is how TPKs have to be dealt with, what happens when these forces of change in the world are cut down and so their goals weren't resolved? Even with a few people dying, starting a few weeks later makes more sense with the new people (getting the word out to independent high-level adventurers takes a while) and opens up consequences.

[Arkhios]

Echoing the earlier points of view:
4th edition D&D is the only edition I remember as non-lethal at early levels. Why, all of a sudden, this is an issue, while obviously earlier editions (before 4th) have been a lot more deadlier than 5th. At least now you can't die from a single blow unless the damage exceeding 0 is more than your maximum hit points (as opposed to, for example, max. negative 10 hp no matter what your level is).

[ad_hoc]

This kind of goes all the more so for possible TPK situations. There just isn't much in a TPK to drive engagement in most cases. Unless a TPK is the only plausible or remotely reasonable outcome to a situation there isn't much to be gained from having one.

The possibility for a TPK to happen helps to create tension. It also alters character behaviour which can create interesting stories.

If it is possible for a TPK to happen, then it will eventually happen. Hopefully it does so in a memorable way as it is the conclusion of that story.

That said, it's usually not very interesting for characters to die when they haven't done anything yet. I engineer games to have a low chance for character death/TPKs for the first 2 levels for that reason. After level 3 though anything can happen.

[BrianDavion]

honestly even low level D&D is pretty forgiving compared to a lot of RPGs out on the market. don't want a TPK? don't pick a fight with a red dragon at 1st level.

a lot of the time in TPK situations the DM's sitting there eaither thinking "....... boy these guys screwed up big time" (it's hard to have sympathy for a group of first level PCs who deliberatly seek out a dragons lair)

or "... why won't you run? why won't you run?"

[Doug Lampert]

How many DMs have the enemies confirm kills, by attacking unconscious characters? I've DM'd a fight where the same character rolled a natural 20 three times in a row after she was downed, and it had me wondering. In a world where healing magic is common and second winds are a 5% chance, I reckon anyone genre savvy would confirm a kill when it is convenient.

It's up to the DM how common healing magic is among NPCs. No edition except 3rd has had the assumption that NPCs were built according to something similar to PC rules. Fifth is not 3rd. Monsters and NPCs have access to healing magic if and only if you either want monsters and NPCs to have access to healing magic or you're playing a module "by the book" and it says they do.

Similarly, death saving throws aren't something that happens for most NPCs. The idea that there's a 5% chance someone will get back up runs counter to the way NPCs actually work.

It's entirely possible that the first time that the group of goblins you're fighting EVER saw anyone get back up was when they fought the PCs, so about 2 rounds before their defeat.

Nor does it happening once prove it will happen again, so till two or three PCs have gotten up in the same fight it is up to how the DM built the world to determine if the NPCs realize that this is a real problem, and by then it's probably too late.

[Mr.Moron]

The possibility for a TPK to happen helps to create tension. It also alters character behaviour which can create interesting stories.

If it is possible for a TPK to happen, then it will eventually happen. Hopefully it does so in a memorable way as it is the conclusion of that story.


This only holds as the length of the game approaches infinity. Which is a great deal longer than most games last. I've been running a campaign for some 3+ years. Obviously it's not a 5e campaign, but still it's been played with no dice fudges or other things that rule out a TPK (although some of my house rules do make them less likely). It has yet to happen.




That said, it's usually not very interesting for characters to die when they haven't done anything yet. I engineer games to have a low chance for character death/TPKs for the first 2 levels for that reason. After level 3 though anything can happen.

In my games anything is possible from the word go. However In general if I'm given an option between two outcomes that are in the same general league of plausibility one lethal and one non-lethal I'll generally opt for the non-lethal one.

If a player had decided to dive head first for a swim into the boiling ocean an actual place in one of my games they would have been cooked. I'm not the kind of person adverse to the complete lava (http://www.scratchfactory.com/Resources/LavaBanners/LavaRules.pdf) rules.

However at one point same agents of the big bad did manage to down a PC, and force the rest of the group into retreat. It was also certainly plausible the baddies would just finish the job and be done with the pest. However it was also reasonable that the bad guy might want to interrogate him to find out what they know about his plans, get information on their allies and yes, just gloat a little. Neither of these options would have been out character for the bads, nonsensical from a narrative sense or "unfair" from a mechanical standpoint. So the obvious choice to me was to go for one where he has the PC interrogated, since that led to an interesting if chaotic rescue and some more insight into the baddie from the interrogation scene.

[Democratus]

We recently had low level party TPK when the Wild Magic sorcerer had a fireball for a surge.

Sometimes it just happens whether or not it serves some narrative. It's a deadly world. And that's a good thing!

[Tanarii]

So were almost all editions of D&D. In basic and 1E, wizards have d4 hit points, only had one spell per day, and it sucked. They also needed 2,500xp to reach 2nd-level. 5E is a lot less lethal at low-levels -- less XP to rather higher levels, more powerful spells, more hit points on weaker characters, and much harder to die (repeated con checks gives a lot of time to save someone).



Echoing the earlier points of view:
4th edition D&D is the only edition I remember as non-lethal at early levels. Why, all of a sudden, this is an issue, while obviously earlier editions (before 4th) have been a lot more deadlier than 5th. At least now you can't die from a single blow unless the damage exceeding 0 is more than your maximum hit points (as opposed to, for example, max. negative 10 hp no matter what your level is).Agree with both of these. 5e is incredibly non-lethal for adventurers the way most DMs run the game. Even at low levels. It's a little more dangerous at 1st, because of the small chance that a single blow will crit-kill you, but still a very non-lethal edition comparatively even at 1st level.

And quick level advancement means you're fairly rapidly out of the danger zone.

[Easy_Lee]

Before we get hung up on gritty realism, let's remember that most people spend most days of their lives not dying, that people like the mafia usually just beat up people who offend them, that even soldiers prefer not to fight when they have the choice, and that prisoners are useful for many reasons.

Maybe the bandits just want your stuff, and don't want the heat that murder brings.
Maybe the bear tries to drag your limp body away, rather than eating you in combat.
Maybe the cultists need a live sacrifice.
Maybe the orcs are clever enough to hold you for ransom, figuring someone will want you back. It's not like they profit by killing you.
Maybe the Martians need our women.
Maybe the dragon just lets you bleed out, since death saves usually only apply to players and similar important targets, and are not necessarily a fact of the world. It's not like you matter to that powerful creature, anyway.
Maybe the thwarted assassin holds a dagger to your neck and threatens to kill you if the others don't let him go.
Maybe "gritty realism" is even less realistic than traditional high fantasy.

Long story short, there is no right way to play the game, but there are plenty of reasons why murderhoboing on either side is silly.

[Socratov]

honestly even low level D&D is pretty forgiving compared to a lot of RPGs out on the market. don't want a TPK? don't pick a fight with a red dragon at 1st level.

a lot of the time in TPK situations the DM's sitting there eaither thinking "....... boy these guys screwed up big time" (it's hard to have sympathy for a group of first level PCs who deliberatly seek out a dragons lair)

or "... why won't you run? why won't you run?"

It's not always dragons, an orc or goblin can kill a partymember in 1 shot if he tries or gets a bit lucky. 1 crit is all it takes on lvl 1 for any character, and on lvl 2 for about half the characters.

Then again, adventuring brings great risks with it, so there is that...

[Carlobrand]

Early level TPKs: why? Because:

a) the DM sucks;
b) the player sucks;
c) the team sucks;
d) wild chance;
e) pick 2 or more of a through d.

I remember D&D in the early days. It was hard for a DM NOT to kill low level players. Death rate was so bad they had to create a variant rule to give people some chance of surviving, and thus was born that 0 to -10 dying rule. I can't recall when that came into vogue.

5E isn't so bad compared to that: "When damage reduces you to 0 hit points and there is damage remaining, you die if the remaining damage equals or exceeds your hit point maximum." If you aren't killed outright, you are unconscious and get death saving throws, one every round until you stabilize or die, 50/50 chance, and you have to fail three times to die. Odds of surviving three rounds like that are 87.5%. Meanwhile, there's a stabilization cantrip, "Spare the Dying".

No, if this version had been around way back when, I'd have tossed my old stuff in the trash and leaped right into this one.

[Toofey]

Sometimes I wonder if I'm the last DM on the internet who's willing to cut the PCs a break every now and again.

But seriously, I would guess this is a combination of bad planning (not a lack of planning) and an unwillingness to deviate from plans. It's pretty toxic to a gaming group to TPK the first few sessions.

[Tanarii]

It's pretty toxic to a gaming group to TPK the first few sessions.IMX, giving the players a free pass is one of the more toxic things a DM can do for a game. But what constitutes a free pass varies. In 5e default, using the DMG encounter guidelines, you don't really need to give the players a free pass to avoid a TPK.

But the idea that TPKs are toxic is going to vary greatly by gaming group. I'd expect players brought up on newer editions, or brought up on old editions who eventually burned out on dying so much, or who play in small regular groups, to be more likely to play that way.

But ones that like a serious strategic & tactical challenge, who want to fight to survive, who take great pleasure in winning, and can accept that without serious risk of losing winning is less meaningful? They're probably going to curse a TPK, but it won't be toxic. The exact opposite. It'll motivate them to do better next time.

[Fruitbat1919]

I'm new to 5th, but can see that a change from 4th to 5th might confuse some players into believing they should be able to be more durable at low levels.

I can see that for some groups, the novice levels of 5th may not be to their style of play i.e. getting into the think of the action quickly. So to accomplish this, I will create situations that are suitable as a DM, as I really don't think early level TPKs are best for the game, unless they enhance the story, say as an play through of a group of heroes who saved the town by sacrificing their lives.

In 2nd ed I've even had first level characters defending settlements from dragons by being creative and not letting the rules dictate over story. I can see this will be quite easy to accomplish in 5th ed

[Kryx]

let's remember that most people spend most days of their lives not dying.
You have not been watching enough Game of Thrones my friend ;)

[ad_hoc]

I'm new to 5th, but can see that a change from 4th to 5th might confuse some players into believing they should be able to be more durable at low levels.

I can see that for some groups, the novice levels of 5th may not be to their style of play i.e. getting into the think of the action quickly. So to accomplish this, I will create situations that are suitable as a DM, as I really don't think early level TPKs are best for the game, unless they enhance the story, say as an play through of a group of heroes who saved the town by sacrificing their lives.

In 2nd ed I've even had first level characters defending settlements from dragons by being creative and not letting the rules dictate over story. I can see this will be quite easy to accomplish in 5th ed

There is nothing stopping groups from starting at 3rd level either.

I like playing through the apprentice levels, but they aren't for everyone.

[Demonslayer666]

5e has become pretty well-known for being utterly lethal at low levels. Accepting this as a given - monsters always fight till dead, they won't let PCs leave a fight alive - why do so many DMs decide to kill characters?

I understand the enemies making the choice to knock out characters. But there's a 50/50 chance that those characters will stabilize in 3 rounds rather than dying; to have a true 100% TPK as opposed to just knocking out all the PCs, the monsters have to be consciously killing downed PCs rather than just leaving them to bleed out.

What happened to monsters taking prisoners? Sure, savage humanoids like gnolls and non-humanoid creatures would be more likely to kill, but the typical first-level flunkies are goblins and kobolds - these are exactly the kind of mischievous little snots that would take prisoners, either to sacrifice or to ransom.

A TPK can be fun if everyone's on board, if the party are going out in a blaze of glory; getting beaten to death by 1/4 Challenge mooks isn't glorious.

That's not endemic of 5th. That's your DM(s).

4th edition was very survivable at low levels, but all other editions had it so a longsword could kill you at 1st level, at least as best as I can recall.

This sounds like a much needed discussion of "what is fun" with your DM, and not a problem with 5th.

[Fruitbat1919]

Compared to Rolemaster, 5th looks more forgiving at low levels😉

[Fruitbat1919]

There is nothing stopping groups from starting at 3rd level either.

I like playing through the apprentice levels, but they aren't for everyone.

True. Plenty of options. I think if TPKs are happening too often, the players and DM need talk more🙂

[Toofey]

IMX, giving the players a free pass is one of the more toxic things a DM can do for a game. But what constitutes a free pass varies. In 5e default, using the DMG encounter guidelines, you don't really need to give the players a free pass to avoid a TPK.

But the idea that TPKs are toxic is going to vary greatly by gaming group. I'd expect players brought up on newer editions, or brought up on old editions who eventually burned out on dying so much, or who play in small regular groups, to be more likely to play that way.

But ones that like a serious strategic & tactical challenge, who want to fight to survive, who take great pleasure in winning, and can accept that without serious risk of losing winning is less meaningful? They're probably going to curse a TPK, but it won't be toxic. The exact opposite. It'll motivate them to do better next time.

I don't disagree with what you're saying, but I'd point to the specifics of what I was saying. When your forming a gaming group, as opposed to looking at it as a part or campaign, you have to get the group (or more likely some part of the group) to gel to the point that they're willing to spend considerable amounts of time together. A TPK too early in the formation of a group of players can seriously set this effort back because it's going to leave everyone with a bad taste in their mouth, and it's probably going to break the game for the session so it's going to leave a bad taste as everyone's farewell impression from that session.

I think the players should have some risk, and over the long haul I DM a rather dangerous game, but tbh risk is not really that important to having a good game. Suspense is, but if the DM can keep the players on the edge of their seats, that's all that really matters.

[Tanarii]

When your forming a gaming group, as opposed to looking at it as a part or campaign, you have to get the group (or more likely some part of the group) to gel to the point that they're willing to spend considerable amounts of time together.For sure. That's why I said I can see it being a problem for a small regular group of players. I haven't really played in those kinds of games much since my post-college years. Mainly because they have a tendency to rapidly fall apart when you live in a city with many gaming options. But some places, they're the only realistic option. (Or maybe people just prefer them, and manage to keep them together.)



but tbh risk is not really that important to having a good game. Suspense is, but if the DM can keep the players on the edge of their seats, that's all that really matters.this I disagree with, but it's a play style thing. I'm in the group of people that thinks that if you can't lose, you can't win. Risk, as in an actually having your character able to die, not just the appearance of that risk, is a critical part of the game for me.

[Telwar]

Compared to Rolemaster, 5th looks more forgiving at low levels😉

Hackmaster, of all systems, had a 20-point HP kicker at start, rather similar to 4e's +Con HP.

[RickAllison]

However at one point same agents of the big bad did manage to down a PC, and force the rest of the group into retreat. It was also certainly plausible the baddies would just finish the job and be done with the pest. However it was also reasonable that the bad guy might want to interrogate him to find out what they know about his plans, get information on their allies and yes, just gloat a little. Neither of these options would have been out character for the bads, nonsensical from a narrative sense or "unfair" from a mechanical standpoint. So the obvious choice to me was to go for one where he has the PC interrogated, since that led to an interesting if chaotic rescue and some more insight into the baddie from the interrogation scene.

In your shoes, here is what I would have done. (1) The players retreat seeing enemies seemingly preparing to stab the fallen PC, but they hear a shout of "I want him alive!" (2) The fallen PC is delivered to the BBEG and, rather than being tortured, he is welcomed as a guest (this part will be discussed and RPed out in secret from the other players, and preferably videotaped so the party can get the flashback later on!). (3) Depending on the PC, he may either join the BBEG to later betray the party as a double agent or resist and be imprisoned, interrogated, and possibly killed. (4) Information of the captive's location is leaked to the party after a time skip. (5) The party finds guides to infiltrate the location, planted by the BBEG. (6) The party arrives and either rescues their turned friend, or are ambushed as they find the corpse of their former friend.

[Afrodactyl]

I try to avoid TPKs when I DM low level groups, I'll usually have a way to either end a difficult combat early or something else planned in case they wipe.

I have however pit a level one party against a Death Knight as a story piece. The party was very confused when they just plain couldn't hit him.

[Xetheral]

Risk, as in an actually having your character able to die, not just the appearance of that risk, is a critical part of the game for me.

Out of curiousity, without seeing the DM's notes (or otherwise being told by the DM), how would you ever know the difference between actual risk and the appearance of actual risk? Isn't the appearance of a given situation the *only* information you have?

[Fruitbat1919]

Games with high kill rates are more like run the gauntlet than a good story. Yes death of some characters or even a whole party can and should be part of a long term story arc. Game of thrones is a good example. Yet not all the cast die at once. TPKs are best as rarities in a story arc type game.

If all involved want to play a run the gauntlet game, that's cool too🙂

[Arkhios]

Playing in a sandbox campaign there's a lot higher risk of facing a TPK, than in the majority of "railroaded" advanture paths, because in a sandbox campaign, the party can decide freely where they'll go next every time. It's not exactly the DM's fault if a low-level party decides to venture into a deadly CR location; that's the whole point of a sandbox. The world is open for free exploration, and DM's shouldn't be required to downscale every god damn encounter just because of the player's whims. If a 1st level party venture into the lair of an ancient red dragon, the blood is in their hands, not the DM's. A wise DM might however involve a Deus Ex Machina and have at least someone stay alive so that the campaign can continue (IF they had some major quest to do).

In a largely predetermined adventure path (hence, the name) the parties are a lot less likely to encounter too hard challenges for their current level, because such adventures are likely designed with that in mind. A TPK can still occur however, if the player's don't think what they're doing (or if the DM haven't read the adventure carefully; e.g. not reading a special tactic on any given sub-boss stat blocks or the like). I've noticed that some groups forget to rest once in a while, to refresh their resources. Most seem to think that they must complete their current task within one day or something, while often there are no strict time-schedules. If the players insist on not getting some shut-eye, then as DM, you shouldn't force that either. If they insist on continuing, then by all means, let them. If that ends up getting all of them killed, that's definitely not the DM's fault.

[Fruitbat1919]

Playing in a sandbox campaign there's a lot higher risk of facing a TPK, than in the majority of "railroaded" advanture paths, because in a sandbox campaign, the party can decide freely where they'll go next every time. It's not exactly the DM's fault if a low-level party decides to venture into a deadly CR location; that's the whole point of a sandbox. The world is open for free exploration, and DM's shouldn't be required to downscale every god damn encounter just because of the player's whims. If a 1st level party venture into the lair of an ancient red dragon, the blood is in their hands, not the DM's. A wise DM might however involve a Deus Ex Machina and have at least someone stay alive so that the campaign can continue (IF they had some major quest to do).

In a largely predetermined adventure path (hence, the name) the parties are a lot less likely to encounter too hard challenges for their current level, because such adventures are likely designed with that in mind. A TPK can still occur however, if the player's don't think what they're doing (or if the DM haven't read the adventure carefully; e.g. not reading a special tactic on any given sub-boss stat blocks or the like). I've noticed that some groups forget to rest once in a while, to refresh their resources. Most seem to think that they must complete their current task within one day or something, while often there are no strict time-schedules. If the players insist on not getting some shut-eye, then as DM, you shouldn't force that either. If they insist on continuing, then by all means, let them. If that ends up getting all of them killed, that's definitely not the DM's fault.

How I tend to get around sandboxes is to not have level areas or too much already structured. I tend to make it so PCs will need certain levels of spells, resources or help to gain access to areas where they are pretty certain to meet threats that are way over their levels.

Yes, they can find high level threats that are pretty certain to kill them if standing toe to toe or going unprepared. Yes, they can and always have the chance to die, but I will let them know the risks through story. They will have choice. If they choose to risk their lives knowing the chances of success are very slim, so be it. I will always give them alternative options to continue any story.

Preparing lots of sections of a world is a route I used to do, but now find using the story the players help evolve, works better for myself. If the story dictates that the PCs need to face an angry high level dragon at early levels, I feel I can role play a scenario that means clever thinking and planning will get them through, where as trying to pick a direct fight will almost certainly be problematic for them. If they have all the information and can weigh up risk, they can keep their adventure within relative risk. Yes they can still die, but their chance of dying is usually more when they knowingly take more risk. When they die this way, they truly feel like heroes🙂

[Toofey]

For sure. That's why I said I can see it being a problem for a small regular group of players. I haven't really played in those kinds of games much since my post-college years. Mainly because they have a tendency to rapidly fall apart when you live in a city with many gaming options. But some places, they're the only realistic option. (Or maybe people just prefer them, and manage to keep them together.)

this I disagree with, but it's a play style thing. I'm in the group of people that thinks that if you can't lose, you can't win. Risk, as in an actually having your character able to die, not just the appearance of that risk, is a critical part of the game for me.

Well, my two longest standing groups were both in NYC so that may explain why that's my tendency. as for the other part, if the players think they're at risk, why is anything more required?

[Democratus]

Well, my two longest standing groups were both in NYC so that may explain why that's my tendency. as for the other part, if the players think they're at risk, why is anything more required?

Personally, I don't believe in risk unless I see it demonstrated. After a long period of high-risk behavior without character deaths the whole exercise starts to feel more like a theme park than a dangerous fantasy world.

Real life example: When I jump out of a plane part of the thrill is knowing that there is a real chance I might die. This is further reinforced when I hear about skydivers who did their last jump in the news. If I wanted the "feeling of jumping" without risk to my life I would go to a wind-tunnel service instead.

[Tanarii]

Out of curiousity, without seeing the DM's notes (or otherwise being told by the DM), how would you ever know the difference between actual risk and the appearance of actual risk? Isn't the appearance of a given situation the *only* information you have?Characters die.

Edit: alternately, The DM tells you provided you know how that DM runs games, or you're the DM. But nothing shows danger to a careless group of players that don't understand what the words Combat-as-war and sandbox really truly mean, like character death/TPK.

From a player perspective, I'd rather my group learn that lesson early on than after we've invested some time in the characters.

[Mr.Moron]

Characters die.

So you're playing a game "Bill dies when we roll 1,000" in which players take turns describing the life of Bill a 35 year old employee at your local Walmart. At the end of each turn the GM rolls a d1000. On a roll of a 1,000 the GM announces this and the next player's turn is now describing bill's gruesome death (their choice,I like a Fork Lift accident personally).

You play for 20 sessions, in which there is an average of 100 rolls each for a total of 2,000 rolls. At this point the game falls apart because the of a scheduling conflict with the GM (his son's new little league seasons started up, and the games conflict with your usual play slot - nobody had any other availability). However Bill still lives.

Is it a reasonable conclusion that Bill was never in any danger of dying?

[Carlobrand]

Personally, I don't believe in risk unless I see it demonstrated. After a long period of high-risk behavior without character deaths the whole exercise starts to feel more like a theme park than a dangerous fantasy world.

Real life example: When I jump out of a plane part of the thrill is knowing that there is a real chance I might die. This is further reinforced when I hear about skydivers who did their last jump in the news. If I wanted the "feeling of jumping" without risk to my life I would go to a wind-tunnel service instead.

Have you considered seeing a ... nah, that's a cheap shot. Never mind.

I do not jump out of planes. I do not use wind tunnel services. I face the risk of death every time I get behind the wheel of a car - it is neither exciting nor frightening, just a reality of life. I get no sense of exhilaration from real or feigned risk and see no more point in jumping out of a perfectly good airplane than in going up, down and sideways on a roller coaster that will just take you right back to the point you started. Either prospect actually seems kind of boring to me.

I understand I am a bit of an oddball in that respect.

Point is, different people approach the game with different expectations. The DM has the difficult task of trying to meet most or all of those expectations. In my view, you do not have to prove there is risk by killing someone - but I will be damned upset if a smart monster behaves stupidly, because the challenge I am looking for is intellectual. Hacking and slashing, whether the risk is real or feigned, gets rather old after a while.

[Democratus]

So you're playing a game "Bill dies when we roll 1,000" in which players take turns describing the life of Bill a 35 year old employee at your local Walmart. At the end of each turn the GM rolls a d1000. On a roll of a 1,000 the GM announces this and the next player's turn is now describing bill's gruesome death (their choice,I like a Fork Lift accident personally).

You play for 20 sessions, in which there is an average of 100 rolls each for a total of 2,000 rolls. At this point the game falls apart because the of a scheduling conflict with the GM (his son's new little league seasons started up, and the games conflict with your usual play slot - nobody had any other availability). However Bill still lives.

Is it a reasonable conclusion that Bill was never in any danger of dying?

Wow. That's so not at all what was said. But nice straw man...I suppose. :smallconfused:

[Mr.Moron]

Wow. That's so not at all what was said. But nice straw man...I suppose. :smallconfused:

"Straw Man" means that I make up a weak argument, attribute that argument to someone else and then counter that argument and claim I have found holes in the weak argument they never made and therefore refuted their position as a whole.

In that post I have put forward no positions, attributed them to one and made no arguments about them. I put forward an Hypothetical situation, described the outcome of that situation and then asked a question about what conclusions are reasonable to reach from that outcome.

This was done as a means of examining the assertion put forward in Tanariis post, not yours!. Specifically that post stated that Character Death or (later in an edit, after I'd started writing the post) that explicit GM statements are the acceptable evidence for risk of character death.

[Democratus]

"Straw Man" means that I make up a weak argument, attribute that argument to someone else and then counter that argument and claim I have found holes in the weak argument they never made and therefore refuted their position as a whole.

In that post I have put forward no positions, attributed them to one and made no arguments about them. I put forward an Hypothetical situation, described the outcome of that situation and then asked a question about what conclusions are reasonable to reach from that outcome.

This was done as a means of examining the assertion put forward in Tanariis post, not yours!. Specifically that post stated that Character Death or (later in an edit, after I'd started writing the post) that explicit GM statements are the acceptable evidence for risk of character death.

It was a bad example for a position that was made purposefully flawed in order to make the position seem flawed. The very definition of a straw man.

I also said that I need to see risk of death demonstrated before it is felt even earlier in the thread. And it is true. When characters die you know for a fact that there is a real risk of character death. Until this happens it is unclear if the DM is fudging the game to keep the characters alive (thus removing any real stakes and dramatic tension) - despite anything they may claim otherwise.

[Mr.Moron]

It was a bad example for a position that was made purposefully flawed in order to make the position seem flawed. The very definition of a straw man.

If you continue to insist I've engaged in straw-mannery, please answer these question so that I may properly address the claim:

What was the argument I attribute to someone?
Who did I attribute it to, and where do I make this attribution?
What was the argument I made against it?

[Tanarii]

Is it a reasonable conclusion that Bill was never in any danger of dying?Never in any significant danger, no.

Edit: On top of that, your example is one of randomness. Not character tactics and strategy.

(I'd have thought your comment was a strawman argument too, but your explanation makes it clear you're instead doing your normal thing: pointing out the most extreme application of an unclear and/or extreme statement. :smallwink: )

[MrStabby]

So you're playing a game "Bill dies when we roll 1,000" in which players take turns describing the life of Bill a 35 year old employee at your local Walmart. At the end of each turn the GM rolls a d1000. On a roll of a 1,000 the GM announces this and the next player's turn is now describing bill's gruesome death (their choice,I like a Fork Lift accident personally).

You play for 20 sessions, in which there is an average of 100 rolls each for a total of 2,000 rolls. At this point the game falls apart because the of a scheduling conflict with the GM (his son's new little league seasons started up, and the games conflict with your usual play slot - nobody had any other availability). However Bill still lives.

Is it a reasonable conclusion that Bill was never in any danger of dying?

Bill may or may not have a chance of dying. Unless the players know what the DM is rolling for behind his screen they don't know. Now whatever prior probabilities each player assigned to the likelihood that Bill would be allowed to die before the game, the evidence has better supported the hypothesis that Bill will not be allowed to die.

Likewise in a game where the DM rolls behind a screen and/or uses hidden information such as presence or absence of reinforcements etc.. Where players don't die it is support for the hypothesis that the DM will not allow them to die. Dead PCs do the opposite.

[Xetheral]

Characters die.

Edit: alternately, The DM tells you provided you know how that DM runs games, or you're the DM. But nothing shows danger to a careless group of players that don't understand what the words Combat-as-war and sandbox really truly mean, like character death/TPK.

From a player perspective, I'd rather my group learn that lesson early on than after we've invested some time in the characters.

Characters can die without there normally being any real risk to the characters. For example, characters occasionally die in the campaigns I run, but short of *extreme* bad luck or a player doing something truly reckless, in most combats there is merely the appearance of danger, rather than actual danger. So long as the players can't distinguish between fights where the appearance happens to be "real" and those where the appearance is "illusory", I find I get the best of both worlds: the tension of danger combined with the ability to limit the possibility of character death to those times where it would either *add* to the players' enjoyment or at least not detract from it.

My point is that the DM's willingness to permit character death doesn't mean that there is consistent "real" danger. So I'm still uncertain how as a player in a game you'd distinguish between the two types of danger short of the DM telling you (either on purpose or inadvertently).

[Tanarii]

My point is that the DM's willingness to permit character death doesn't mean that there is consistent "real" danger. So I'm still uncertain how as a player in a game you'd distinguish between the two types of danger short of the DM telling you (either on purpose or inadvertently).Well, first off, the DM absolutely should tell you if the campaign is planned to be higher or lower lethality than normal.

Even if they aren't told, the player can also distinguish by if they are clearly encountering a combat-as-sport paradigm vs a combat-as-war paradigm. Or a sandbox environment vs linear adventure environment. Or consistently getting more or less rests than the recommended baseline. Or consistently facing easier or harder combats than the recommended baseline.

Or running into "splat you dead" traps because they aren't paying attention to hints and clues, although nowadays that's considered totally unfair play without lots of warning it's that kind of game. :smallamused:

[Grod_The_Giant]

A point about making sure dying pcs stay down: how can you tell? Combat is chaotic. You see a guy take a go down with half a dozen arrows in his chest and stop moving, the automatic assumption is that he's dead. You're not going to stop and check if that giant, blood-gushing cut is really a mortal wound out not if there are a bunch more guys out there still fighting back.

[Democratus]

A point about making sure dying pcs stay down: how can you tell? Combat is chaotic. You see a guy take a go down with half a dozen arrows in his chest and stop moving, the automatic assumption is that he's dead. You're not going to stop and check if that giant, blood-gushing cut is really a mortal wound out not if there are a bunch more guys out there still fighting back.

This is a good question. The characters in the world of D&D know the rules of their own world. They know first hand about the odds of being dead when dropped by attacks, just as they know the world has magic and monsters.

Much of this will hinge on how rare class-level people are in the world you inhabit. A world like Forgotten Realms is lousy with high-level folks. Monsters know that a fighter/mage/rogue isn't down until it is down. In a world where the PCs are the only creatures that use the "death save" rule - there will be a different set of base assumptions.

[Tanarii]

This is a good question. The characters in the world of D&D know the rules of their own world. They know first hand about the odds of being dead when dropped by attacks, just as they know the world has magic and monsters.That's a simulation way of thinking. They don't necessarily know the odds. Nor are the abstract rules necessarily the underlying physics of their universe.

[Fruitbat1919]

That's a simulation way of thinking. They don't necessarily know the odds. Nor are the abstract rules necessarily the underlying physics of their universe.

Agree.

Also in many D&D games, PCs are meant to be the unique few, the cream of the crop, the heroes who make it when all else fail. In many D&D games, magic is not always widespread. In such games it could be quite the norm to consider most die after taking way less pain / injury / stress of battle, than our heroes take. In such a world, the majority, would not consider many to rise again once fallen.

If high magic in all societies and those where heroes are more common, people rising from after taking such pressure in battle may be more common and hence guarded against more from learnt behaviours.

All we need to do is think in terms of reality in the game world and adjust behaviours of creatures, NPCs and PCs accordingly.

[Xetheral]

Well, first off, the DM absolutely should tell you if the campaign is planned to be higher or lower lethality than normal.

Even if they aren't told, the player can also distinguish by if they are clearly encountering a combat-as-sport paradigm vs a combat-as-war paradigm. Or a sandbox environment vs linear adventure environment. Or consistently getting more or less rests than the recommended baseline. Or consistently facing easier or harder combats than the recommended baseline.

Or running into "splat you dead" traps because they aren't paying attention to hints and clues, although nowadays that's considered totally unfair play without lots of warning it's that kind of game. :smallamused:

Good point on the traps: if the lethality is high enough, I guess that's conclusive proof that the characters are in danger (although whether it's a murderous DM targeting specific characters or a "fair" deadly world could still go either way).

Otherwise though, while I could tell my players whether a given campaign is planned to be higher or lower lethality than my average, I have no idea what "normal" is in the abstract, so I wouldn't know how to judge where I fall on distribution of DMs.

As for the specific factors you mention, I'm not sure how they would actually correlate to lethality--that seems to be an independent DM choice compatible with any of the styles you mention. While I tend towards combat-as-war, (partial/psuedo) sandboxes, fewer rests (at least fewer useful rests), and harder encounters, I nonetheless prioritize the appearance of danger over actually risking the PCs' lives. That's obviously not what you're looking for in a campaign, but given that I run what I assume are your "more dangerous" options, I'm not sure how you'd know that as a player if I hadn't told you.

[Democratus]

That's a simulation way of thinking. They don't necessarily know the odds. Nor are the abstract rules necessarily the underlying physics of their universe.

If things in the universe fall when you let them go, creatures in that world know this and avoid letting go of a hammer over their foot. If paper burns when set alight, creatures know this and would take care not to put important papers in the fireplace. And if heroes are commonplace and regularly fall in combat only to get up again, enemy creatures would know this as well and react accordingly.

No physics are needed. Just characters narratively behaving as the world dictates.

[Carlobrand]

It was a bad example for a position that was made purposefully flawed in order to make the position seem flawed. ...

Isn't that more like argumentum ad absurdum?

[Carlobrand]

A point about making sure dying pcs stay down: how can you tell? Combat is chaotic. You see a guy take a go down with half a dozen arrows in his chest and stop moving, the automatic assumption is that he's dead. You're not going to stop and check if that giant, blood-gushing cut is really a mortal wound out not if there are a bunch more guys out there still fighting back.

If it's gushing bright red blood, it's not mortal yet, though it will go that way very quickly if something isn't done pretty quick. When it stops gushing on its own, he be worm meat - unless that's because someone got to him with a Spare the Dying or some other intervention. At least that's the case for humans - I don't know about some of these other creatures.

And, in fairness, I'm pretty sure some of my NPC kills lived to fight another day, since we were never much inclined toward wandering about checking pulses and slashing throats.

[Hooligan]

And if heroes are commonplace and regularly fall in combat only to get up again, enemy creatures would know this as well and react accordingly.

No physics are needed. Just characters narratively behaving as the world dictates.
Indeed.

But even if heroes are "commonplace" (with respect to things said enemies have encountered), the chances of the average brigand or thug having encountered (and survived) enough of them to acquire that knowledge is likely slim; much more likely such enemies are no run-of-the-mill fodder if they've survived and advanced that far.

Additionally, per the rules of the game, when any other being besides a PC "drops" it is dead & not rising again. It is not unreasonable to assume that such creatures far outnumber PCs, and thus it is much more likely that the any given enemy's experience, knowledge, & subsequent behaviors would be based on the way the far more numerous non-PCs behave.

Exceptions will be experienced enemies (careful assassins, veteran soldiers, dragons, etc) who reasonably have encountered & survived PC-calibre beings.

In short, all of this is ultimately enemy-, setting-, & DM-dependent. But as this is merely a thought experiment I think it is unreasonable to assume all but a select few would know & behave as you've suggested.

[Democratus]

In short, all of this is ultimately enemy-, setting-, & DM-dependent. But as this is merely a thought experiment I think it is unreasonable to assume all but a select few would know & behave as you've suggested.

Which is exactly what I said several posts ago: "Much of this will hinge on how rare class-level people are in the world you inhabit. A world like Forgotten Realms is lousy with high-level folks. Monsters know that a fighter/mage/rogue isn't down until it is down. In a world where the PCs are the only creatures that use the "death save" rule - there will be a different set of base assumptions."

[Tanarii]

If things in the universe fall when you let them go, creatures in that world know this and avoid letting go of a hammer over their foot. If paper burns when set alight, creatures know this and would take care not to put important papers in the fireplace. And if heroes are commonplace and regularly fall in combat only to get up again, enemy creatures would know this as well and react accordingly.

No physics are needed. Just characters narratively behaving as the world dictates.You describe the physics of the world, then state that it doesn't have anything to do with choosing to treat the abstract mechanics as the physics of the world. :smallconfused:

[Hooligan]

Which is exactly what I said several posts ago: "Much of this will hinge on how rare class-level people are in the world you inhabit. A world like Forgotten Realms is lousy with high-level folks. Monsters know that a fighter/mage/rogue isn't down until it is down. In a world where the PCs are the only creatures that use the "death save" rule - there will be a different set of base assumptions."

Even so, I think it is unreasonable to assume that an average enemy will either:
a. have a baseline level of knowledge that they should know about PCs and how they behave on going down.
or
b. fought & survived against enough PC-equivalents to have acquired that knowledge through experience; I mean relatively speaking, how many goons (or nearly any NPC for that matter lol) typically survive contact with the PCs?

[Democratus]

You describe the physics of the world, then state that it doesn't have anything to do with choosing to treat the abstract mechanics as the physics of the world. :smallconfused:

In this case they are one and the same. Narratively, things fall when dropped. Physically, the same.

There are many criminals who use kryptonite against superman only because they heard that he is vulnerable to it. They didn't have to have used it themselves first to know this.

If, in a story, an orc sees a fallen hero get back up. And then sees it again. Expecting it the third time isn't physics, it's logical narrative flow. Other orcs will be privy to this as well since they are such a chatty little sewing circle.

Creatures behave narratively as if they understand the physics of their own world. If PCs encounter pirates on the sea they should be surprised when the priates understand that if they go to full sail the ship will move faster.

[Tanarii]

In this case they are one and the same. Narratively, things fall when dropped. Physically, the same.Except mechanics don't have to align with one and only one narrative.


TIf, in a story, an orc sees a fallen hero get back up. And then sees it again. Expecting it the third time isn't physics, it's logical narrative flow. Other orcs will be privy to this as well since they are such a chatty little sewing circle. This is dependent on many things, up to an including interpreting the abstract mechanics as leading to "fallen hero get[s] back up". You can run the mechanics as abstractly or simulationist as you choose to. Clearly you choose to make the simulationist, interpreting the rules as the physical rules of your world. That is not required.

Similarly, you might choose to interpret "HPs" as physical damage, or something else. But the rules don't require that the abstract mechanical rule of an attack roll, followed by a hit for d8+X damage, means that physically the sword cut the skin. Abstract rules do not always require extrapolation into the physical reality of the in-game universe. (This is a pretty easy and simple example of what I'm talking about, chosen to illustrate the point.)

[Democratus]

Except mechanics don't have to align with one and only one narrative.

This is dependent on many things, up to an including interpreting the abstract mechanics as leading to "fallen hero get[s] back up". You can run the mechanics as abstractly or simulationist as you choose to. Clearly you choose to make the simulationist, interpreting the rules as the physical rules of your world. That is not required.


Narrativist, not simulationist. But yes. We all choose to do what works best for us at our table.

Nothing is required except people at the table to enjoy the game.

[Fruitbat1919]

Always going to be difficult when we are mixing game abstractions with realities of the world. After all, the rounds of saves are only a game mechanic abstraction to give PCs a chance to survive.

2nd ed had a much longer abstraction of each round. You were expected to be doing much more during the long rounds, but only the rolled actions were effective. PCs moved during fighting and the rules were aimed more theatre of the mind.

3rd ed shrank the rounds to seconds to accommodate figures, maps and the different style of play.

5th ed has mixed options to try to accommodate both styles of play, but in doing so fights are pretty much abstractions to use the rule set and make it adaptable to more camps of play. The affect of this is to make assumptions of reality very difficult to base on the actual rules of play.

So the DM really has to base reality on what makes the game the most fun for all concerned, but it's pretty hard to argue that either way is incorrect for all circumstances and worlds.

[Twelvetrees]

In an attempt to bring this thread a little bit back on track, I've got two responses to the OP's question of why DMs kill characters.

As a player: I've had DMs whose entire goal has been to kill as many characters as possible. If a session went by without a character dying, they would feel as if they hadn't succeeded--because they felt the role of the DM was that of an antagonist. I've also had better DMs who would let the dice fall where they may and generally only killed our characters for being stupid or for getting in over our heads.

As a DM: I kill characters when they make stupid decisions or when logic dictates they should (A carrion crawler with a paralyzed character will carry them off and eat them). I refuse to kill the characters of new players--if they've never played a roleplaying game before, killing their character is not going to make them want to keep playing.


The one time I have trouble knowing whether I will kill a character is when I misjudge what the characters can face. What do other DMs do when your monsters are far more deadly than what you had anticipated? Would you kill them anyways?

[Fruitbat1919]

In an attempt to bring this thread a little bit back on track, I've got two responses to the OP's question of why DMs kill characters.

As a player: I've had DMs whose entire goal has been to kill as many characters as possible. If a session went by without a character dying, they would feel as if they hadn't succeeded--because they felt the role of the DM was that of an antagonist. I've also had better DMs who would let the dice fall where they may and generally only killed our characters for being stupid or for getting in over our heads.

As a DM: I kill characters when they make stupid decisions or when logic dictates they should (A carrion crawler with a paralyzed character will carry them off and eat them). I refuse to kill the characters of new players--if they've never played a roleplaying game before, killing their character is not going to make them want to keep playing.


The one time I have trouble knowing whether I will kill a character is when I misjudge what the characters can face. What do other DMs do when your monsters are far more deadly than what you had anticipated? Would you kill them anyways?

DMs may kill PCs for many reasons, many already discussed here. The OP has related this to be a phenomenon of 5th ed in particular, stating that 5th has a reputation for being 'utterly lethal at low levels'. Discussion has therefore been partly based on the system itself.

As far as knowing what the characters can face. I think it's reasonable to have in mind what level of threat you want to challenge their level of party with. If and when you get that level of threat wrong (it happens), I think it's reasonable to assist the party for story purposes. If on the other hand you have got the threat level right and the party are just not playing well, then you may need to let them feel the consequences of their own actions. I say may because everyone has off days and to punish the people you are supposedly their to make a fun and challenging game for, does not make sense, unless that is the kind of game they desire. It's quite easy to pull back the reins of monsters to the challenge level you initially wanted.

Often having the party fight at levels they will struggle with, can help story plots develop. I always let any new players know that I will do that as a DM and at some point, you will have to retreat and find new ways to overcome things that stand in the way of your goals.

I think the players knowing how you perceive Hit Points is helpful. I like to let players know that it is alright to feel you don't have to fight to your last few hit points, or that when they get that low, they should be thinking of self and group preservation. Not necessarily running away, but maybe backing a struggling character away from danger or assisting them. I encourage player to describe what is happening to their characters. I also believe that like in real life, we can usually see when someone is struggling. I do encourage players not to talk in terms of hit points though.

Discussion of whether we believe the system makes it harder for the DM to maintain an adequate challenge, is interesting and relevant though.

And just to add, the Carrion Crawler can carry the PC off, but being eaten is not the only outcome, it's a fantastic world, and perfectly acceptable to have the Carrion Crawler get into trouble with another monster and have the PC fall off down a slope and another side story develop. Maybe another band of adventurers saves him, or the party of the big bad takes him hostage and is used as a bargaining chip in later negotiations, just as the party thought they had the upper hand.

I would always advise death by non heroic means to be avoided, so if being carried off to be eaten is the fate to be, describe how by it happening the Mighty Mac has just saved the rest of the group. Always try to make the player feel they died a hero🙂

[Tanarii]

I would always advise death by non heroic means to be avoided, so if being carried off to be eaten is the fate to be, describe how by it happening the Mighty Mac has just saved the rest of the group. Always try to make the player feel they died a hero🙂Assuming the PCs are automatically heroes, and should therefore only die heroic deaths, is a pretty huge play-style assumption.

[Mr.Moron]

Bill may or may not have a chance of dying. Unless the players know what the DM is rolling for behind his screen they don't know. Now whatever prior probabilities each player assigned to the likelihood that Bill would be allowed to die before the game, the evidence has better supported the hypothesis that Bill will not be allowed to die.

Likewise in a game where the DM rolls behind a screen and/or uses hidden information such as presence or absence of reinforcements etc.. Where players don't die it is support for the hypothesis that the DM will not allow them to die. Dead PCs do the opposite.

It's not strong support. I mean, I've never been hit by train, but poor support for the statement "Well the evidence so far suggests that it may not be possible for trains to hit me". If Bill doesn't die it doesn't tell us anything about if bill is allowed to die or not. This is because no matter how much we spend watching bill not die, it tells us nothing about what might happen to bill tomorrow. It does rule out some things:

Bill must die after one day.
Bill always dies on Tuesdays.
And so on.

What it does give us good supporting evidence for is what is likely or not. For example it's very very good evidence that the following is not true:
Bill has a 10% chance of dying each day.

We don't know this isn't the case without the benefit knowing about the d1000, we can say that if it were true that bill had a 10% chance of dying each day bill is a very lucky man as his chances of being alive after 2000 turns are so slim they may as well be 0. Maybe bill should invest in lottery tickets instead of that job at walmart!

What I think this tells us along with Tanrii's later response to my post is that this isn't really about the possibility of death, or that the risk of death just exists. It's that for some folks they want a certain level of danger, a certain risk of death and that level is pretty high. A game where the risk of death is sufficient such that any given character living longer than X sessions is unlikely, and that a character living longer than X*Y sessions is so unlikely as to be considered an impossibility.

I'm sure that line is different for everyone but I think that's where the disconnect between the two camps is coming from. There's a certain line of thinking that holds death shouldn't be a possibility, death should be a certainty.


Assuming the PCs are automatically heroes, and should therefore only die heroic deaths, is a pretty huge play-style assumption.

Well "PCs as Heroes" is an assumption but it's also probably the default intentions of the system. After all the word "Hero" is plastered all over the books, the marketing pushes that image and the licensed goods also center on heroes.

That said I don't think there's much evidence that "Heroes must die heroic deaths" is the default intent of the game, if that was the case we'd have rules that enforce that.

There's also always the argument "If a character is a hero and they die, there death is by definition a heroic one", though that isn't a terribly compelling one imo.

[Tanarii]

Well "PCs as Heroes" is an assumption but it's also probably the default intentions of the system. After all the word "Hero" is plastered all over the books, the marketing pushes that image and the licensed goods also center on heroes.Okay, in the case of 5e specifically (and 4e for that matter), that's fair. It does seem to be an assumption of the system.

But its not a default assumption of D&D in general. The typical assumption across all editions is that PCs may become heroes. If they survive. Or die


That said I don't think there's much evidence that "Heroes must die deaths" deaths is the default intent of the game, if that was the case we'd have rules that enforce that.

There's also always the argument "If a character is a hero and they die, there death is by definition a heroic one", though that isn't a terribly compelling one imo.Interesting. If you read up, a lot of the original designers of D&D thought it WAS the intent of your PCs to die heroically. And that's exactly what made them heroic. Then you made the next character. OTOH they were all wargamers, so not being so concerned about the life of one character probably was a huge factor.

[Mr.Moron]

Okay, in the case of 5e specifically (and 4e for that matter), that's fair. It does seem to be an assumption of the system.

But its not a default assumption of D&D in general. The typical assumption across all editions is that PCs may become heroes. If they survive. Or die

Except this is the 5e forum. If we're counting 4e that's been the default assumption for a decade now. Plenty of players have had that been the only assumption they've known, and more still the one that's been held for the vast majority of their time with the game. Someone who picked up 4e in high school is already in their mid-20s by now.

The era of PCs as "Potential heroes maybe. If they feel like and if they're lucky." being default is gone and buried, at least so far as the D&D product identity is concerned.



Interesting. If you read up, a lot of the original designers of D&D thought it WAS the intent of your PCs to die heroically. And that's exactly what made them heroic. Then you made the next character. OTOH they were all wargamers, so not being so concerned about the life of one character probably was a huge factor.

I think the D&D of today and the D&D of 20-years-before-most-people-reading-this-were-born are wholly different things. Connected perhaps by some terminology and a brand name, but nothing beyond the superficial.

[Tanarii]

Except this is the 5e forum.Absolutely. I agree. And 5e doesn't assume regular player death should be a thing.

IMO the OP premise that 5e is lethal and has high TPK potential at low levels isn't correct. It's more relatively dangerous than the higher levels, in which death is almost impossible. But it's still not very dangerous, by traditional D&D standards.


The era of PCs as "Potential heroes maybe. If they feel like and if they're lucky." being default has is gone and buried, at least so far as the D&D product identity is concerned.Sadly. But it's pretty easy to bring back. :smallwink:

[Mr.Moron]

Absolutely. I agree. And 5e doesn't assume regular player death should be a thing.

IMO the OP premise that 5e is lethal and has high TPK potential at low levels isn't correct. It's more relatively dangerous than the higher levels, in which death is almost impossible. But it's still not very dangerous, by traditional D&D standards.


I think that by default the way death is handled fails at least to some degree in making sure the players always feel like the heroes the tone of the book & marketing seem build up the idea of.

I can totally see someone thinking death is dealt to readily just because of the way it's handled. You can make all the right decisions, play everything smart and still wind up red smear on the wall on the first attack roll of the first encounter of the game because of a (un)lucky max damage crit.

The game also has "Death" as the only real lose condition. In other words you can't take go into an adventure and risk losing a limb, or (with the exception of wizards) having to give up some hard-earned ability or class feature. Your life is literally the only the thing the rules allow you to put on the line. You're superman until you're a corpse, and killing superman is a big deal.

[Hooligan]

One of the things I enjoy most about D&D as a player is feeling like a badass who is simultaneously just a breath or a mistimed step/sword thrust away from death; I think the thrill of danger (or appearance of danger) is a large part of the fun.

As a DM, striving to strike that balance in a player's mind can be difficult, and when the balance shifts too far in one direction we get situations outlined in many of the posts in this thread. While DM & player preferences seems to be 2 overriding determinants in which way the deadly seesaw swings (will the DM/players make it so), I'd chalk a good bit of it up to the awareness & "skill" of the DM (can or how readily can the DM make it so); how well do you think 5e provides the novice DM with the means of achieving this balance?

[Fruitbat1919]

1st ed was different, but 2nd ed material often described the PCs as the heroes, so I disagree that it is a new occurrence🙂

[Fruitbat1919]

Assuming the PCs are automatically heroes, and should therefore only die heroic deaths, is a pretty huge play-style assumption.

Heroes, Anti-heroes, main characters of the story, all names of the figures that are centre to the game at hand. Yes I'm basing on an assumption of story, but if it's just a gauntlet game and the characters are just stats to see how far they can get before death, then much of the role play element baked into 5th seems redundant.

Remember my comment was in answer to a question asking what others do - hence my suggestion based on what I do. Never did I suggest this was the 'only' way, or that it was RAW🙂

[Fruitbat1919]

Also "Heroes must die heroic deaths" was never said by myself, if that is aimed at my suggestion, as I can't find it written by someone else here. Maybe I missed the comment by someone else🙂

I do stand by my suggestion that in story games (yes an assumption, but hardly a 'hugh' assumption😜), that making death meaningful, memorable and heroic is the better option. If the game is being played in a different style, then by all means forget my suggestion, as it is clearly not aimed at gauntlet style or similar games🙂

[Fruitbat1919]

It seems most of us here see it more as a product of play style and not the edition as a whole. I do think the open nature of 5th will play well in any style as 2nd did. Will see when my games up and running😜

[ClintACK]

In 5e, why are your 1st level characters -- essentially peasants with delusions of adequacy -- engaging in any kind of lethal combat? That's nuts.


Make the first session a county fair. The Barbarian is fighting in the melee -- a round-robin of non-lethal combat with pugil sticks. The Bard is entertaining the crowd for loose change -- and distracting them so the Rogue can pick pockets. The Monk is running in a crazy (tough mudder style) race, where lots of grappling and shoving and other shenanigans are expected. And so on. Much roleplaying, basic combat, and skill checks -- a good introduction to the game of D&D.

In the second half of the session, that evening, a bar brawl breaks out -- again, mostly non-lethal with fists and improvised weapons. Any players who go down wake up in the root cellar with the other passed-out drunks. Those who are still standing at the end get to drink the innkeeper's good ale, RP a bit longer, and maybe hear some worrying rumors.

You get XP for completing challenges -- or milestones -- or just sessions. You don't need to kill things or risk death every time -- you need to risk *failure*.

Let the level 2 party see some lethal danger in the second session, when wolves or goblins or something attack the people at the fair. Make it clear how serious -- and lethal -- the situation is by having someone the Barbarian just barely beat in the melee go down when two or three wolves surround him.

From there, you head into a normal campaign. The party manages to impress the locals in the chaos, the mayor hires them to look into what got the wolves/goblins/whatever riled up, and they're off and running -- and 3rd level, not 1st.

[Pex]

Just because a character is 1st level doesn't make him an incompetent nobody.

[Socratov]

Just because a character is 1st level doesn't make him an incompetent nobody.

Except that they are. Most of the characters haven't found their subclass yet and they can die from a single strike. compared to 3rd lvl which is early into a class (or career path), they are nobodies.

[Fruitbat1919]

Except that they are. Most of the characters haven't found their subclass yet and they can die from a single strike. compared to 3rd lvl which is early into a class (or career path), they are nobodies.

I think the designers were trying to give the ability to run the starting level feel of the early editions.

Personally I like they included the novice levels, but if I wanted to run certain styles, I would probably start PCs from level 3. Problem is it just feels wrong when doing that😛 Must be some mental quirk I have lol.

[Arkhios]

I think the designers were trying to give the ability to run the starting level feel of the early editions.

Personally I like they included the novice levels, but if I wanted to run certain styles, I would probably start PCs from level 3. Problem is it just feels wrong when doing that😛 Must be some mental quirk I have lol.

I feel it's actually quite common to have a "more experienced" group of players start at 3rd level, campaign permitting. Novice levels are great also because it's less class abilities to learn at once.

From story telling perspective, first three levels are when the characters are mainly swiping tavern basements from rat infestations. At 3rd level they are more likely to receive their first real quests (not including rats, except maybe slightly bigger rats than before!)

[Fruitbat1919]

I feel it's actually quite common to have a "more experienced" group of players start at 3rd level, campaign permitting. Novice levels are great also because it's less class abilities to learn at once.

From story telling perspective, first three levels are when character are mainly swiping tavern basements from rat infestations. At 3rd level they are more likely to receive their first real quests (not including rats, except maybe slightly bigger rats than before!)

Yep definitely helpful for the completely new to role playing group I'm starting up soon. Less for them to think about for those first sessions.

I differ from the OP in thinking that 5th ed is really dangerous at those levels. Danger involved yes, but not wildly more due to the novice levels only requiring very few XP to level up.

I know many will disagree, but starting with a new group that have never played before, I will make sure they don't all die through some unlucky rolls. Fudging? Yes. I would prefer they feel the fun having some story first before everyone has to reroll characters🙂

I'm sure I remember one of the editions (or it may even be another game) having some add on novice levels in one of the books. My brain just won't remember which game it was (old age😝)

[Mr.Moron]

I feel it's actually quite common to have a "more experienced" group of players start at 3rd level, campaign permitting. Novice levels are great also because it's less class abilities to learn at once.

From story telling perspective, first three levels are when the characters are mainly swiping tavern basements from rat infestations. At 3rd level they are more likely to receive their first real quests (not including rats, except maybe slightly bigger rats than before!)

You don't have to be "swiping tavern basements from rat infestations" you can be doing high-status jobs. In my last 5e game had the players going to hunt for a rare type of feather needed for an important ceremony in the kingdom. It earned them a place in the grand precession (which was of course attacked by monsters not seen for 1000 years), and the favour of the rulers. Saving the world it is not, but it's certainly not sweeping vermin from the basement either.

1st level is just when you're facing easier challenges, not all of those have to be menial labour or things with no impact on the world around them. Sure they were still fighting random low level animals and a few goblins but it was for an important reason that affected important people.

Imagine say an adventure that opens up with a message being sent to the king: The threat that has him about to march into war was deception by those who wish to disrupt the peace. The noble sending the message with his seal would like nothing more than to have it guarded by his best men but nearly all of his resources have been sent away to aid in the imminent war effort and he desperately needs what little remains. So he taps the services of the most trustworthy seeming problem-solvers the local area has to offer up (our PCs) to escort the courier. The road isn't hugely dangerous usually, nothing worse than bands of goblins most of the time. However even though the challenge is level appropriate challenge for our novice adventurers the stakes are huge. If they fail and the letter is lost or the courier killed the kingdom will go to war, if not the peace will remain and the hunt to bring down the conspirators begin. Either way it will hugely affect the setting and what sort of adventures are available for the 1st leg of the campaign.

There is a lot of space to lend weight and long-term relevance to adventures that still aren't too tough for the newbies.

[Fruitbat1919]

You don't have to be "swiping tavern basements from rat infestations" you can be doing high-status jobs. In my last 5e game had the players going to hunt for a rare type of feather needed for an important ceremony in the kingdom. It earned them a place in the grand precession (which was of course attacked by monsters not seen for 1000 years), and the favour of the rulers. Saving the world it is not, but it's certainly not sweeping vermin from the basement either.

1st level is just when you're facing easier challenges, not all of those have to be menial labour or things with no impact on the world around them. Sure they were still fighting random low level animals and a few goblins but it was for an important reason that affected important people.

Imagine say an adventure that opens up with a message being sent to the king: The threat that has him about to march into war was deception by those who wish to disrupt the peace. The noble sending the message with his seal would like nothing more than to have it guarded by his best men but nearly all of his resources have been sent away to aid in the imminent war effort and he desperately needs what little remains. So he taps the services of the most trustworthy seeming problem-solvers the local area has to offer up (our PCs) to escort the courier. The road isn't hugely dangerous usually, nothing worse than bands of goblins most of the time. However even though the challenge is level appropriate challenge for our novice adventurers the stakes are huge. If they fail and the letter is lost or the courier killed the kingdom will go to war, if not the peace will remain and the hunt to bring down the conspirators begin. Either way it will hugely affect the setting and what sort of adventures are available for the 1st leg of the campaign.

There is a lot of space to lend weight and long-term relevance to adventures that still aren't too tough for the newbies.

Yes, combat may also be completely avoided. Have the PCs as investigators with clear consequences and story plot hooks abound. A great way to actually get them to go out into the big bad world🙂

[Jarlhen]

As far as combat and death and such is concerned the DM has to be absolutely stone cold in my opinion. And that's not easy. But if the DM doesn't adhere strictly to the rules set forth and to the world/situation they have created, with an almost brutal mind-set then there is no risk in the game. The DM has to be consistent and death has to be a real threat. Healing magic, potions, wishes, reviving, all that stuff already lessens the risk of death to an almost depressing degree. If the DM start to take pity on the players there is pretty much no threat at any point. It's not easy, it's not necessarily the most fun part, but that risk has to be there and it has to be real. No exceptions, ice in the veins, the DM has to be a consumate professional in regards to these things in my opinion. And sometimes that means a TPK.

[Xetheral]

But if the DM doesn't adhere strictly to the rules set forth and to the world/situation they have created, with an almost brutal mind-set then there is no risk in the game.

While I agree that the perception of risk is a very valuable aid to creating verisimilitude, I see it as merely one of the priorities the DM is trying to juggle. You appear to be valuing the perception of risk to the exclusion of those other priorities, and willing to sacrifice both DM flexibility as well as things like compassion in order to get it.

Is it simply a playstyle choice, where for you personally, the perception of risk is essential to your enjoyment as a player, so that all other concerns are secondary? That might be tricky to DM for unless all the players share your opinion. If there are other players at your table with other play preferences, are you ok with the DM balancing their preferences with yours?

[Democratus]

You don't have to be "swiping tavern basements from rat infestations" you can be doing high-status jobs. In my last 5e game had the players going to hunt for a rare type of feather needed for an important ceremony in the kingdom. It earned them a place in the grand precession (which was of course attacked by monsters not seen for 1000 years), and the favour of the rulers. Saving the world it is not, but it's certainly not sweeping vermin from the basement either.

Indeed!

In our local League run-through of Hoard of the Dragon Queen - the party (at 1st level) walked into Greenest and had to face off against an army and a dragon!

Half of the starting party died. But the survivors (and those citizens of Greenest who joined up with the party as new PCs) vowed to even the score and bring the fight to the cultists! It was an amazing start to the campaign.

[ClintACK]

As far as combat and death and such is concerned the DM has to be absolutely stone cold in my opinion. And that's not easy. But if the DM doesn't adhere strictly to the rules set forth and to the world/situation they have created, with an almost brutal mind-set then there is no risk in the game. The DM has to be consistent and death has to be a real threat.

Yep.

And that's the problem with throwing a solid 1st-level encounter at a 1st-level party. You risk either 1) a higher chance of character/party death than you intended, or 2) establishing a bad pattern/expectation that the DM will go easy on the party when things get dangerous.

Edit: Unless, of course, either 1) or 2) is something that the group will enjoy. :)

[Fruitbat1919]

There is always a vast range of options in between the assumption of no risk and the presentation of killer risk😝

Many stories work well by building up the tension at certain points as apposed to having a constant level.

All options are valid for a game, but I'm obviously more keen on the emotional ride of a good story. A good story with safer times does not necessitate the lack of risk or the DM giving the impression of hand holding and blanket safety🙂

To add this to the OP, I think there are many options available to use 5th ed in many ways that he would be comfortable with. The hardest part is finding a group where all want the same style of play😀

[Tanarii]

Is it simply a playstyle choice, where for you personally, the perception of risk is essential to your enjoyment as a player, so that all other concerns are secondary?I feel like you've got the PoV back to front. It's not that other concerns are secondary. It's just that if you know, or come to believe, that you can't lose, then enjoyment is lessened dramatically. Because when you can't lose, you can't win.

Edit:
Now if you want to ask me: is it my playstyle choice, and essential to my enjoyment, that I be able to win a game I'm playing? Generally speaking, Yes. Yes it is. And D&D had traditionally been a tactical RPG that provides that essential component very well. It was originally the entire goal of the game. You won by surviving. That means for more modern editions, I generally have to tweak the rules or join with groups that are willing to play outside the recommended balance of the game. (Although sometimes I like sitting down to popcorn & soda & slaughter the enemies games without significant challenge too. That's what AL is for.)

[JackPhoenix]

Except that they are. Most of the characters haven't found their subclass yet and they can die from a single strike. compared to 3rd lvl which is early into a class (or career path), they are nobodies.

That doesn't mean they aren't already above most people in the world. Most people are commoners with 4 hp and all 10's in stats. Even average soldiers or bandits are worse than level 1 fighter: 11 hp, few stats at 11-13 and no fighting style or second wind. Nobles aren't that much better, they know how to defend themselves (Parry ability) but they still have only 9 hp

Compared to higher level adventures? Yes, they are nobodies. Compared to 95%+ people in the world? They are elites.

[Mr.Moron]

I feel like you've got the PoV back to front. It's not that other concerns are secondary. It's just that if you know, or come to believe, that you can't lose, then enjoyment is lessened dramatically. Because when you can't lose, you can't win.

Edit:
Now if you want to ask me: is it my playstyle choice, and essential to my enjoyment, that I be able to win a game I'm playing? Generally speaking, Yes. Yes it is.

Which seems to be where a ton disconnect can come from. Folks don't just have different playstyles they're approaching the same set of rules as fundamentally and wholly separate classes of games.

From where I sit it is impossible to "win" at D&D or any RPG.

You fight the monsters kill them? Well you've won a battle but not the game. the battle and the outcome advanced the state of the game world and developed more events to interact with.

You fight the monsters and lose? Well you've lost a battle but not the game. The battle and the outcome advanced the state of the game world and developed more events to interact with.

The goal of the game isn't to beat the monsters and get the treasure, it's to see what happens to the characters in the world. We just happen to be following a set of characters in a world with monsters sitting on top of treasure they want. The PCs advancing or failing to advance their goals, winning or losing fights, is not the same as the Players or GM "Winning" or "Losing" in any substantive sense.

When one of my players took massive damage got knocked out of the fight and lost an arm as a result of a poor decision, it's hard to argue her character wasn't a massive loser in that fight. However that event had the following results:

1) The place holder background NPC given to her to control in combat so she wasn't sitting on her thumbs for the next several sessions became one of the more iconic and enjoyable NPCs in the campaign later on. Since leaving PC control he's been an entertaining and useful (if at times frustrating) ally.
2) The subsequent adventure to get a magical prosthetic was interesting and introduced the PCs to some influential players in the world.
3) Gave the player a few knobs to turn in character customization as potential accessories for the new prosthetic came up. Even if she does have to take the thing off in areas where it's considered to be heresy.

Even a TPK is not a loss. It's a game event like any other, just one I find particularly hard to drive engagement from.

Which isn't to say approaching RPGs a winnable test of skill is wrong. I just think that the gulf between the two schools of thought is so wide it may account for why so much of this conversations feels like people talking past each other.

[Tanarii]

Which isn't to say approaching RPGs a winnable test of skill is wrong. I just think that the gulf between the two schools of thought is so wide it may account for why so much of this conversations feels like people talking past each other.I generally try to make my position, or at least the underlying reason behind it, clear. In RPGs like D&D, where permanent death is possible at low levels, and technically even in high levels, you have several kinds of winning. And one of them is managing not to die. At least, it used to be. It isn't as much any more, because the system generally assumes you'll live.

But I don't think that's the *right* way to play D&D. I think it's a playstyle that I and many others enjoy. Sometimes I may get little overzealous and it may appear I'm trying to claim it's a right way, but that's not my intent. My intent is to try to communicate to others that it's a playstyle choice, as opposed to the *wrong* way to play.

However, it's a way to play that the 5e system doesn't very strongly support.

[MaxWilson]

Which seems to be where a ton disconnect can come from. Folks don't just have different playstyles they're approaching the same set of rules as fundamentally and wholly separate classes of games.

From where I sit it is impossible to "win" at D&D or any RPG.

You fight the monsters kill them? Well you've won a battle but not the game. the battle and the outcome advanced the state of the game world and developed more events to interact with.

You fight the monsters and lose? Well you've lost a battle but not the game. The battle and the outcome advanced the state of the game world and developed more events to interact with.

The goal of the game isn't to beat the monsters and get the treasure, it's to see what happens to the characters in the world.

Isn't this a form of infinite game (vs. finite game)? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finite_and_Infinite_Games

[Xetheral]

I feel like you've got the PoV back to front. It's not that other concerns are secondary. It's just that if you know, or come to believe, that you can't lose, then enjoyment is lessened dramatically. Because when you can't lose, you can't win.

Mr.Moron's response is spot-on, so I'll just echo his sentiments. I particularly like his insight that it's not just a playstyle difference between us, but an entirely separate approach to what an RPG is. Both approaches are equally valid, of course, but the fact that they are so different likely explains a lot of our disagreements.


Now if you want to ask me: is it my playstyle choice, and essential to my enjoyment, that I be able to win a game I'm playing? Generally speaking, Yes. Yes it is.

And that's probably the crux of it. In my approach to D&D, the idea of "winning" the game itself has no meaning. In fact that's usually the first thing I explain to new players at my table: the concepts of winning and losing don't apply.


I generally try to make my position, or at least the underlying reason behind it, clear. In RPGs like D&D, where permanent death is possible at low levels, and technically even in high levels, you have several kinds of winning. And one of them is managing not to die. At least, it used to be. It isn't as much any more, because the system generally assumes you'll live.

My approach wherein survival does not equate to winning has nothing to do with the decrease in lethality across editions; indeed, it has nothing to do with the level of lethality at all. Instead, it's that in my approach there aren't "several kinds of winning"--there's none, because the concept doesn't apply at my table. I've run highly-lethal games, and I've run less-lethal games, depending on the preferences of my players at the time, but that's simply a question of themes/tone for a particular game: the concept of winning doesn't take on additional meaning at my table just because characters die more frequently.

[Tanarii]

Mr.Moron's response is spot-on, so I'll just echo his sentiments. I particularly like his insight that it's not just a playstyle difference between us, but an entirely separate approach to what an RPG is. Both approaches are equally valid, of course, but the fact that they are so different likely explains a lot of our disagreements.

I think it's fair enough, in many ways, to say our different points of view on D&D underlying intent and goal is more fundamental than the term play-style implies.

(Read the rest of your post too, but we're pretty much in agreement on what's what so didn't quote it all.)

I'll note that 'win' by living is more fundamental to the stereotypical version of various RPGs. Like: if you play Ninjas and Superspies or Heroes Unlimited, the goal is to defeat the evil-doers (enemy ninjas, spies or villians). If you play Runequest, it's to explore and eventually rule the ancient world. If you play Shadowrun it's to fight the corporations. If you play Call of Cthulu it's to stay alive in the face of eldritch horrors. And if you play D&D, it's to explore and somehow survive dungeon or wilderness deathtraps, and come out rich if you succeed, buy armies and strongholds, and switch to playing miniature wargaming. Although obviously the game has evolved a little since that last part. :smallwink:

Those are the stereotypical 'what am I doing in this game' for each one. And each one sets the tone for it's 'win' condition, and the relative importance of mere survival as a metric for success and failure. D&D is probably about in the middle of the pack of those originally. Nowadays, mere survival is a generally a non-goal in D&D, at least in comparison to any of those others.

[MaxWilson]

I think it's fair enough, in many ways, to say our different points of view on D&D underlying intent and goal is more fundamental than the term play-style implies.

(Read the rest of your post too, but we're pretty much in agreement on what's what so didn't quote it all.)

I'll note that 'win' by living is more fundamental to the stereotypical version of various RPGs. Like: if you play Ninjas and Superspies or Heroes Unlimited, the goal is to defeat the evil-doers (enemy ninjas, spies or villians). If you play Runequest, it's to explore and eventually rule the ancient world. If you play Shadowrun it's to fight the corporations. If you play Call of Cthulu it's to stay alive in the face of eldritch horrors. And if you play D&D, it's to explore and somehow survive dungeon or wilderness deathtraps, and come out rich if you succeed, buy armies and strongholds, and switch to playing miniature wargaming. Although obviously the game has evolved a little since that last part. :smallwink:

Is this really the goal of CoC? I haven't played it but its reputation suggests otherwise--I'd always heard that it's about playing a game where you will deteriorate/go mad/die, no doubt about it. My impression is that CoC is more about the journey than the destination... which suggests that survival per se probably isn't the goal of play.

Am I wrong in that impression?

[Tanarii]

Am I wrong in that impression?The most important attribute is speed. It needs to be higher than the team-mate next to you, so you're not the one at the back when you run away. :smallbiggrin:

(I may be thinking of a different horror game. But IIRC that was the running joke about cthuhlu)

[quinron]

I think this discussion of play-style and game expectations/approaches is getting at something important here. To offer an insight that isn't mine, but that I've taken to heart: D&D isn't a game. It's just a set of rules. The game isn't made until people sit down and start talking about how these rules are going to interact with each other and someone starts "inputting information" into these rules and determining their "outputs."

Which, to get to the salient point of the thread, is probably why opinions on the merit of early-level lethality vary. For some of the games created using D&D's "engine," it's a problem and a nuisance that prevents players from getting to enjoy the character they cooked up; for other games, it's an important indicator that this world doesn't play favorites for the PCS. And that's why it's probably a hopeless endeavor to try to argue these merits against each other: we're looking at two completely different things and trying to say they're the same. Not to say it's not a worthwhile discussion, but it's important to outline which type of game you're talking about first, and it's ESPECIALLY important to make it clear between DM and players what type of game you're PLAYING when you sit down.

Not an original observation, I'll readily admit, but one that I think bears repeating here.

[2D8HP]

In 5e, why are your 1st level characters -- essentially peasants with delusions of adequacy -- engaging in any kind of lethal combat? That's nuts.
Make the first session a county fair.That's actually a good suggestion! Or you can just....

Dagnabbed whippersnappers nowadays getting so attached to their special snowflake characters that they need to have three failed saves before the character dies, and they take max HP at first and average after that, and they keep gaining by their HD after 10th, and save-or-die effects are nearly gone.

Back in my day we died like flies and we liked it, dagnabbit! I've lost first-level characters to nonsense like a couple-three squirrels, a housecat, a barnyard goat, or falling down the stairs at the inn we were all meeting at! We rolled for our HP at first level, and we died instantly at 0HP, and just about everything could kill us! We brought stacks of spare character sheets, stacks of 'em, dadgummit! Characters were hapless fools to feed to the meat-grinder until one lucky and paranoid sonofab*** actually managed to live long enough to earn his glory! Characters didn't survive because we thought they were cool, we thought they were cool because they survived! These consarned young'uns nowadays don't even know what a 10ft pole is for, and would flip the table and whine about how bad the DM is at the entrance to the Tomb of Horrors.

Now git off my edition, dagnabbit!

[Fruitbat1919]

I think this discussion of play-style and game expectations/approaches is getting at something important here. To offer an insight that isn't mine, but that I've taken to heart: D&D isn't a game. It's just a set of rules. The game isn't made until people sit down and start talking about how these rules are going to interact with each other and someone starts "inputting information" into these rules and determining their "outputs."

Which, to get to the salient point of the thread, is probably why opinions on the merit of early-level lethality vary. For some of the games created using D&D's "engine," it's a problem and a nuisance that prevents players from getting to enjoy the character they cooked up; for other games, it's an important indicator that this world doesn't play favorites for the PCS. And that's why it's probably a hopeless endeavor to try to argue these merits against each other: we're looking at two completely different things and trying to say they're the same. Not to say it's not a worthwhile discussion, but it's important to outline which type of game you're talking about first, and it's ESPECIALLY important to make it clear between DM and players what type of game you're PLAYING when you sit down.

Not an original observation, I'll readily admit, but one that I think bears repeating here.

Agree with this, but I don't think we need to get hung up on the play style imo. Much of what people are saying about how the 5th ed rules can be used, can be relevant for many play styles.

People can give advice on how to use the 5th ed rule set for level / difficulty for many play styles, but it's not really helpful to make it essential to do so, or to have to state in too much detail how you actually play the game. We only have so much time😜 And there are more intricacies of style than many of us have years left😝

I'm sure those that are picking up on suggestions, because it is not relevant to their own play style could just state their own ideas and agree that we are all intelligent enough here to know where other ideas are relevant to a particular style, without having to question it.

[ClintACK]

That's actually a good suggestion! Or you can just....
Dagnabbed whippersnappers nowadays getting so attached to their special snowflake characters that they need to have three failed saves before the character die...

:)

Pff. 10' pole. In my day, every DM knew that his pit traps needed to extend at least 11' from the trigger point.

[quinron]

Agree with this, but I don't think we need to get hung up on the play style imo. Much of what people are saying about how the 5th ed rules can be used, can be relevant for many play styles.

People can give advice on how to use the 5th ed rule set for level / difficulty for many play styles, but it's not really helpful to make it essential to do so, or to have to state in too much detail how you actually play the game. We only have so much time😜 And there are more intricacies of style than many of us have years left😝

I'm sure those that are picking up on suggestions, because it is not relevant to their own play style could just state their own ideas and agree that we are all intelligent enough here to know where other ideas are relevant to a particular style, without having to question it.

Oh, I totally agree. I just think it's indicative of something that a lot of people take for granted - namely, that we're playing the same game when we play D&D. True, it's not necessarily that important that we all know up front who in the thread is playing what game, but when you sit down at a table to play D&D, it's crucial that the DM and the players be playing the same game; establishing the extent of lethality, especially as it applies to early levels, is an important part of knowing what game you're playing.

Tangential, but just as a bit of a rebuttal to the argument that taking prisoners at low levels establishes a precedent of "going soft": There's no reason those same monster wouldn't take prisoners at high levels as well, or that certain monsters might be more inclined to imprison than to kill. My mind's been on the yuan-ti - medium-low-level monsters who'd take prisoners to sacrifice to their awful serpent gods - and the yugoloth - mid-to-high-level mercenaries who'd probably ransom their captives, then sell them into slavery once they got paid because they're horrible, horrible creatures.

[ChillerInstinct]

It's also very easy to roll up a new character in 5th edition.

In some particularly deadly campaigns we bring along several PCs per player and the survivors of the first few levels end up being the protagonists.

You know, going off of this, I'd like to see someone go full Rogue Legacy with their campaign. The entire campaign is just one big mega dungeon where progress from each PC lasts after their death, the bodies would stay there unless there was reason not to (dusted, dragged off by predators, plane-shifted, etc.), players would roll a new character and rejoin the dungeon on death, and could be resurrected if an appropriately leveled Cleric found them and could rejoin the party, etc. Bit of a tangent I suppose, but if you're going into a campaign PLANNING on a slaughter... might as well go the whole hog, right?

Something that my brother's university D&D group did was, for plot reasons, gave each of the characters starting out a ring that would teleport their bodies out and to the local church if they weren't revived after X amount of time after death (so they COULD be raised in dungeon before X long, and could have their bodies destroyed in the meantime as well). The church was willing to spend the money on reviving them (for free the first few levels, and then for a cut of their loot after, very video-gamey, but most of the group were D&D newbies who had played a lot of video games, so, play what you know right) because, frankly, they were the only mercs in the area equipped for the danger at hand ASIDE from the Clerics. They had houserules for XP loss on death, where so long as you actually got your body out of there, you'd still end up a little bit ahead of where you started (if your body got vapourized, you lost ALL XP from the dungeon, and an even larger cut of loot)

I was never there, not being a student and having no way to visit him during the term, but from the tales my brother told me they had a great time. Sure, having no permadeath might be "casual" but at the end of the day it's about having fun, right?

[Fruitbat1919]

Oh, I totally agree. I just think it's indicative of something that a lot of people take for granted - namely, that we're playing the same game when we play D&D. True, it's not necessarily that important that we all know up front who in the thread is playing what game, but when you sit down at a table to play D&D, it's crucial that the DM and the players be playing the same game; establishing the extent of lethality, especially as it applies to early levels, is an important part of knowing what game you're playing.

Tangential, but just as a bit of a rebuttal to the argument that taking prisoners at low levels establishes a precedent of "going soft": There's no reason those same monster wouldn't take prisoners at high levels as well, or that certain monsters might be more inclined to imprison than to kill. My mind's been on the yuan-ti - medium-low-level monsters who'd take prisoners to sacrifice to their awful serpent gods - and the yugoloth - mid-to-high-level mercenaries who'd probably ransom their captives, then sell them into slavery once they got paid because they're horrible, horrible creatures.

Yep, you need to know upfront what game you're playing. I'm still in wonder today at how many different variations I've come across, even regional. Having moved from North East to South West UK a few years back, even the terminology used in games is different😛