Accepting Death

[Esprit15]

So as we all know, there are some people who don't come into a game realizing that things can quickly turn south. Case and point tonight when the party sorcerer was very nearly poisoned to death by a phase spider, and was visibly becoming frustrated and then depressed that his first character was quite likely going to die, before the party finally got their act together and killed the thing.

I don't like pulling punches as a DM, so short of that, how do I get a player to accept that death is a part of the game? What are ways to help a player accept the risk in the game without just seeing it as "Alright, fine, I'll go reroll. Whatever."

[Lalliman]

It's a matter of playing style. Some people enjoy the constant threat of death while some don't. The latter people tend to still accept their character dying if it's a memorable death and they feel like their character accomplished something. Death by phase spider isn't a terrible way to go (better than being crit by a random wolf that should've been an easy encounter), but it doesn't make for an interesting story to tell either, so that might be it.

I've never personally encountered anyone who is legitimately and utterly unwilling to let their character die. I wouldn't know what to do with that.

[Fri]

Here's the thing.

I always say, when you first start a game, there's a couple of things everyone in the table should agree first, or at least know. Except if you're playing with a long-time group of friends who already know each other's playstyle forever. Or sometimes even then.

Some examples that everyone should agree/know first are: the supposed genre of the game, is it a sandboxy or something with story, etc.

And one of the more important thing to establish at the beginning of the session is. How deadly the game is supposed to be.

Yes, it's important to establish, especially when you just begin to play together. You might say "but people are supposed to die in the game," etc, but that's your default assumption, and people's default assumptions are different. There's a couple "deadly level" I've seen in games, for example, people can only die when it's dramatically appropriate, people can die if they make really bad decisions, people can die from a single bad roll, etc.

Some people argues that "when you can't die all the time there's no stake or tension" or whatever, but no. I played games where everyone can die with a single bad roll, and I played games when people only die when say, they decide to hold the army of orcs while the rest of the party escapes (other than that they just get knocked uncouncious). Death isn't the only source of stakes, there are other stakes like political situation, economical situation, people you care about, etc. But Death is a powerful stake. Just let players be prepared that their character can die in combat by mentioning that when you start the game.

But for this case, since it's been done, just be sympathetic to the player, realize it's his first character, pat his back a bit, say you're sorry, mention that it can happen and you should've prepared him for that, and help him make his next character.

[illyahr]

In a game with an established afterlife, just have them keep the character aware until they are "retrieved" by their guide to the afterlife. They can go with their guide, or can stay around to see if they are going to be revived. If not, let them haunt their former party.

[Necroticplague]

In my experience, frustration comes not from the possibility of death, but the appearence of the arbitrariness of it. Nobody would like it if you suddenly went 'oh and by the way, your dead' without any interaction. Similarly, any death should have them able to point at where they went wrong. The phase spider would be frustrating because there likely wasn't much he could do about it that wasn't basically just praying for good luck (ie, it would die before he did while they trade hits). Also a reason why I am incredibly loathe to use save-or-die.

[Gastronomie]

Unless you're playing something like Paranoia or Call of Cthulhu, IMO the DM should make sure the players don't die too easily. Even if all their HP hit 0 against a squad of drows due to unlucky rolls, you could have them wake up imprisoned but yet definitely alive, as soon-to-be-sacrificed tributes of some vile ritual. Then, if the PCs can't find their own way out, maybe something even nastier than the drow raids upon the site, and the PCs manage to escape...only to find themselves in the harsh Underdark with no real way out. Which would prolly get the adventurers moving.

I'm not saying Deus Ex Machina is a good thing, but it's better than saying "your characters are dead because you rolled terrible".

Or, if it's a grittier world, at least make sure the dead characters aren't "meaningless" and have some impact on the later game. Maybe the NPC the dead PC Paladin befriended later becomes a Vengeance Paladin and aids the newly created PC in his fight against the same great evil. The dead wizard's friend from Hogwarts (or, you know, whereever he learnt how to use magic) could show up as well. You know, something that makes the players feel that while their former characters might be dead, their lives had meaning, and they're still living in the hearts of other people.

[Thrudd]

So as we all know, there are some people who don't come into a game realizing that things can quickly turn south. Case and point tonight when the party sorcerer was very nearly poisoned to death by a phase spider, and was visibly becoming frustrated and then depressed that his first character was quite likely going to die, before the party finally got their act together and killed the thing.

I don't like pulling punches as a DM, so short of that, how do I get a player to accept that death is a part of the game? What are ways to help a player accept the risk in the game without just seeing it as "Alright, fine, I'll go reroll. Whatever."

Tell them in the beginning. "I don't pull punches, the dice fall where they may. That means there is a chance any character could die at any time. Be prepared for that." Also describe what your policies are for the aftermath of death, new character one level lower, the possibility of resurrection/costs and availability, etc.

[Mastikator]

Tell them in the beginning. "I don't pull punches, the dice fall where they may. That means there is a chance any character could die at any time. Be prepared for that." Also describe what your policies are for the aftermath of death, new character one level lower, the possibility of resurrection/costs and availability, etc.

This. They have to start out expecting death to be a possible outcome and accept that in advance. They basically have to think "if I go into this dank cave I might actually die, but I could also have an awesome adventure". Otherwise they'll get sad when death eventually does come from them- and it always eventually does, or they start fearing it.
I've seen players treat plot hooks as unnecessary risks and actively avoid adventure for the sake of safety. Oh boy can it be frustrating to deal with either of these cases as a DM.

[NichG]

It's a balance. The more that players can expect death as a likely outcome (with permanent consequences), the less it makes sense for them to take risks solely for the sake of adventure. Trying to have both as a DM is trying to have your cake and eat it too.

So the more that death is a real risk, the more certainty you must provide that whatever stands to be gained in that cave is truly worth that risk. Keeping in mind that the players already expect to get the power curve of the game for free if they successfully minimize risk, so it must be above and beyond.

Or, you make death less consequential, in which case risk for fun becomes reasonable.

Or, you have an indicator. I had a DM for a Slayers d20 game who assigned each scene a comedy rating. In a Comedic scene, violence generally just knocks people out even in extreme cases like detonating an entire city. In a Neutral scene, death is possible, but accepting defeat means capture or being messed with, rather than execution. In a Serious scene, there will be no mercy and death is likely. Actions in a scene can shift it - if big changes are on the line, it moves towards Serious. If you act zany and take pratfalls, you can push Neural to Comedic, or even Serious to Comedic if you get the opposition to engage with your comedy, at the cost of basically making the outcome of the conflict not really change anything.

In that setting, there are quite a few extremely overpowered evil beings flitting about, but they just can't understand the Comedic end, so you can neutralize them by not letting things get serious when trying to deal with them. But that in turn means you don't really get the chance to 'take them out' at that point, you just weather them.

[Eisenheim]

This section from the fate SRD is a great read when thinking about characters losing and character death, and none of it is system limited.

http://fate-srd.com/fate-core/confli...ting-taken-out

If you read the character death section, it has some thoughts about why sudden death is often an uninteresting result, which I agree with.

[Quertus]

It's a matter of playing style. Some people enjoy the constant threat of death while some don't. The latter people tend to still accept their character dying if it's a memorable death and they feel like their character accomplished something. Death by phase spider isn't a terrible way to go (better than being crit by a random wolf that should've been an easy encounter), but it doesn't make for an interesting story to tell either, so that might be it.

I've never personally encountered anyone who is legitimately and utterly unwilling to let their character die. I wouldn't know what to do with that.

Characters with history are richer than characters fresh off the presses. Subsequently, I prefer not to have characters die. That having been said, I've had hundreds of characters die. Some deaths are better than others.

For me, the question is whether the death is realistic / reasonable / that v word. If characters only die at dramatically appropriate times, then death - and the struggle against it - loses its meaning / value for me.

Some of the people I play with take it a bit further, and don't want the struggle to be life and death. They also get upset at the idea of PvP. They want to tell their character's story. Ending the story doesn't help - it means that they need to find and grow attached to a new story. Or, at least, that's the best I can figure it.

For this particular player, I recommend talking to them, seeing what their expectations and comfort level are. Along those lines... how comfortable are you with not death? With making the character's struggle not be a matter of life and death? One DMs response to this problem brought us the tale of Arnd, and his armor of legend. Another possible response, while still keeping the combat focus, might be to encourage amulet of emergency healing, ring of nine lives, contingency, etc. Or you could modify the opposition to focus on foes that deal stat drain, or that want to capture instead of kill the party, etc.

[Darth Ultron]

Tell them in the beginning. "I don't pull punches, the dice fall where they may. That means there is a chance any character could die at any time. Be prepared for that." Also describe what your policies are for the aftermath of death, new character one level lower, the possibility of resurrection/costs and availability, etc.

I'll agree with this.

Sadly, with all too many modern gamers, a Dm has to take hours and hours to explain everything about the style of game play that will be used in the game. The DM needs to define every word used and give examples too fully have each player understand everything.

And this is on top of the talk about how the game uses common sense reality (''fire is hot and will burn your character'') and the we don't use your crazy old DM's house rules (''magic missile does not bounce around and kill 1d100 monsters'').

[Satinavian]

This. They have to start out expecting death to be a possible outcome and accept that in advance. They basically have to think "if I go into this dank cave I might actually die, but I could also have an awesome adventure". Otherwise they'll get sad when death eventually does come from them- and it always eventually does, or they start fearing it.
I've seen players treat plot hooks as unnecessary risks and actively avoid adventure for the sake of safety. Oh boy can it be frustrating to deal with either of these cases as a DM.

So you have players who don't like to die.

Then you tell them, that you don't pull punches and that your adventures are risky.

And then you are surprised if they skip several plots ?


Trying to avoid dangers is the normal outcome in a game without safety net and death-averse players. How else are they supposed to avoid death ?

[Anonymouswizard]

It's very important to get the playstyle you're going for out in the open. In the next game I run I'm going to specifically warn my players that I'm not going to pull punches and the game has been balanced on the deadly side (especially if they go in with a balanced group of characters able to get to the end under their own steam), so they should try to use their resources and powers to minimise risk and try for certain wins (essentially I'm going to be running Combat as War, while the players are used to combat as sport, I want to push them out of their combat zone). One of the big scenes includes the fact that if they take it at face value they'll probably die, but if they recruit some allies, get into defensive position, and abuse the magic their opponents don't have access to (basically any), the objective itself becomes trivial and the players can decide if they want to try for more.

In my current game (different group), there's an unspoken agreement we want character death to be possible even if it's not dramatic, and for characters who charge headlong at gunlines to require insane luck. This has included the party avoid all bar two combats in the game so far, one easily won when the enemy routed when we proved that at least two of us were not only better armed, but were wearing armour (plus a helpful case of the elf creeping the enemy out), the other where the enemy ran after hitting the two of us in the combat with poisoned darts and taking almost enough damage to drop. Every other time we managed to happily blunder past them with a mixture of having three faces in the party, actually finding clues instead of encounters, and being component at all those Intelligence skills that get you past combat (including public speaking/leadership, leading to an angry mob immediately following my PC and forgetting that their original ringleader was a slayer who wanted to kill the Skaven). Most of us would be fine with character death, it's just 4/5 of us want to make sure we stack the field in out favour, send the sneaky guy into scout, have backup on standby for if things go wrong, and carry equipment better than whatever the opposition is using (which means that when we go and intentionally confront bad guys instead of trying to be inconspicuous, my warrior priest will be packing his infantry helmet and rifle, along with gas mask, the shadow dancer will go in and scout out the place before reporting back and will then be on psyching out the enemy and teleportation, the alchemist will use bombs and gas to weaken the enemy, the engineer will probably be asking why don't we just talk to them, and I'm not even sure how many weapons the Skaven is carrying [2+ knives, 2+ garrottes, I think he also carries a pistol? he might also have a rifle stashed away somewhere, I wouldn't be surprised if he carried poison as well, and that's before getting into the fact his clothing is actually enchanted to act as armour). The only reason we'd be going in unbuffed is to save energy for healing.

In another group I've played in, the important thing is to feel powerful, and so a combat which is a legitimate challenge and could cause character death would be a surprise. For example, the last game I played with my current group included the 5 PCs, 4 with little combat abilities, and 5 NPC allies pretty much all armed with pistols, against about 7 high level demons (generally dealt with by special teams using assault weaponry) and effectively a low-ranking archdemon (translation: oh **** where are those guys with assault rifles), and 2 extremely powerful bestia demons we bypassed by opening the door, looking, closing the door, and using the back door. We won that battle with a desperate strategy of realising we had spent too much time taking down the high level demons and not enough on the archdemon, so our ninja jumped through the hellbarrier twice to save the sacrifice to be, before our disabled nun pushed her way though to blast the archdemon with holy fire. In my group before the current one the fact that a character took almost half their hp from getting to the 'boss' would have been seen as the GM being unfair. In my current one it's seen as trying to stop us from winning the final battle without trying.

...Just to clarify I have never had my character attempt to sap a low-ranking archdemon's resolve in order to be able to use my control demon power on it. I realised I probably could too late in the battle (it would then have just ended up with me commanding the archdemon to kill it's lieutenants, and then sit still while we exorcise it back to hell). I ended up mainly using that power to simplify interrogating a demon.

[JAL_1138]

Play AD&D. Instant death at 0HP, roll for hit point total at first level, limited Con bonus that only starts at very high stats and is capped for non-Fighters.

I lost so many characters back in the day I start to get twitchy if one lives too long now.

[NorthernPhoenix]

Tell them in the beginning. "I don't pull punches, the dice fall where they may. That means there is a chance any character could die at any time. Be prepared for that." Also describe what your policies are for the aftermath of death, new character one level lower, the possibility of resurrection/costs and availability, etc.

That's probably the fastest way for the OP to have his player not care about his characters, which he seems to be trying to avoid. I know that when i play games where your character can get randomly gibbed at any time, i usually take death with a slight sigh then assembly line the next one into action. Death matters more when its rare and impactfull, at least in my opinion.

[Thrudd]

That's probably the fastest way for the OP to have his player not care about his characters, which he seems to be trying to avoid. I know that when i play games where your character can get randomly gibbed at any time, i usually take death with a slight sigh then assembly line the next one into action. Death matters more when its rare and impactfull, at least in my opinion.

That may be true, but those are the rules of D&D. You roll the dice, roll damage, apply to hp.
Conversely, the player may care more about what they do and why they do it in the game, because they don't want the chatacter to die.

Also, since AD&D, there are mechanics in place to help survivability: negative hp, death saves, easy stabilizing of dying characters, etc. 5e is extremely lenient, imo.

The balance is in the hands of the DM, making sure challenges aren't so excessive that you go through an assembly line of characters, at the same time having enough challenge that the players need to think and use care to accomplish their goals.

When the characters can die according to the rules, the game is about the players solving problems more than it is about telling a story about specific characters.

[Mastikator]

So you have players who don't like to die.

Then you tell them, that you don't pull punches and that your adventures are risky.

And then you are surprised if they skip several plots ?


Trying to avoid dangers is the normal outcome in a game without safety net and death-averse players. How else are they supposed to avoid death ?

Nobody likes to die. But you have to accept that dying is a part of the game. Otherwise you're not gonna have a game, you're just gonna have a player dragging everyone else down and preventing adventure from happening.

[NichG]

Nobody likes to die. But you have to accept that dying is a part of the game. Otherwise you're not gonna have a game, you're just gonna have a player dragging everyone else down and preventing adventure from happening.

You can have entire campaigns where none of the PCs actually end up dying and it doesn't really change much.

[Eisenheim]

the default in fate is for character death to be choice on the player's part, and you can totally have games in fate.
I'm not saying that "let the chips fall where they may and PCs can die whenever the dice decree." isn't valid, but suggesting it's the only way to have a game, in any system, is absurd.

Edit: additional thought.

The rules of D&D are a system that people can use to play a game, but there's absolutely no reason to stick to any particular one of the, if everyone in the group would rather do it another way. Roleplaying is supposed to be fun thing we do as a group. The moment a rule gets in the way of that, throw it under the bus.

[JAL_1138]

the default in fate is for character death to be choice on the player's part, and you can totally have games in fate.
I'm not saying that "let the chips fall where they may and PCs can die whenever the dice decree." isn't valid, but suggesting it's the only way to have a game, in any system, is absurd.

Edit: additional thought.

The rules of D&D are a system that people can use to play a game, but there's absolutely no reason to stick to any particular one of the, if everyone in the group would rather do it another way. Roleplaying is supposed to be fun thing we do as a group. The moment a rule gets in the way of that, throw it under the bus.

I think what was being implied is that it ceases to be a game if everyone but one person is on board with character death. Because then it's an argument, or at least one person being upset [EDIT: or trying to discourage the party from doing anything that might get their character killed, or refusing to take risks that'd keep the game moving, etc., holding everything up] instead of people having fun playing a game. Not that no deaths = not a game.

[Thrudd]

the default in fate is for character death to be choice on the player's part, and you can totally have games in fate.
I'm not saying that "let the chips fall where they may and PCs can die whenever the dice decree." isn't valid, but suggesting it's the only way to have a game, in any system, is absurd.

Edit: additional thought.

The rules of D&D are a system that people can use to play a game, but there's absolutely no reason to stick to any particular one of the, if everyone in the group would rather do it another way. Roleplaying is supposed to be fun thing we do as a group. The moment a rule gets in the way of that, throw it under the bus.

Sure, people have been doing that since D&D first came out. That's why we have so many different RPG systems now, including Fate.

No one said having dice-based character death was the only way, in any system. It is the way of D&D, and the OP apparently had issue communicating that to players expecting a different kind of game.

The default in D&D is as right for D&D, as the default for Fate is right for playing Fate.

Another point: one player that doesn't understand the rules of the game is not cause to throw out the game or change the rules. Teach them the rules, so they can properly play the game and get better at it.

Describing the rules of a game to players before they start playing is an essential and time honored tradition. Thinking all RPGs are alike and not asking or telling how to play is like thinking all board games are the same, and expecting Risk when you're playing Axis and Allies. In the case of tabletop RPGs, it is even worse, because every table is essentially playing a different game, despite using the same game system and rule books. So it is even more essential for the DM to tell new players the rules of the game, and what to expect.

[goto124]

Once, I played a game. Helped people, made friends, obtained magic items, the usual stuff. It was fun.

Then everything changed when the fire nation attacked my first character died.

From then on, the gloom of 'if you die you will lose everything' hung over my head. I became paranoid, stopped going out so much, spent a lot of time staying safe, even avoided talking to people lest I accidentally make someone angry, which could lead to death.

My enthusiasm eventually died as well, and I stopped playing.

[veti]

It's a balance. The more that players can expect death as a likely outcome (with permanent consequences), the less it makes sense for them to take risks solely for the sake of adventure. Trying to have both as a DM is trying to have your cake and eat it too.

So the more that death is a real risk, the more certainty you must provide that whatever stands to be gained in that cave is truly worth that risk.

That's fine, if the players felt they had real, meaningful choices about where to go. That is to say, there were at least two or three feasible, potentially-rewarding places they could have gone, and this one was clearly labelled "high-risk" compared with the others.

But that's often not the case. If the players only found one plot hook/lead, and it directed them into this cave, then they'll likely feel they were railroaded in here. And although it may be theoretically true that they didn't have to come this way, that's not how they'll see it. Killing them in that case is - harsh, and should be avoided if possible.

In the case of a phase spider: I wouldn't hesitate to fudge the damage and/or poison damage rolls as necessary to keep the PC alive-but-unconscious, and his/her mates should be more than able to distract the spider long enough to stabilise them. Spiders are neither intelligent, nor particularly vindictive, and there's no profit for them in finishing off one victim if its mates won't let it alone to eat them.

[JAL_1138]

Once, I played a game. Helped people, made friends, obtained magic items, the usual stuff. It was fun.

Then everything changed when the fire nation attacked my first character died.

From then on, the gloom of 'if you die you will lose everything' hung over my head. I became paranoid, stopped going out so much, spent a lot of time staying safe, even avoided talking to people lest I accidentally make someone angry, which could lead to death.

My enthusiasm eventually died as well, and I stopped playing.

That's fine, if the players felt they had real, meaningful choices about where to go. That is to say, there were at least two or three feasible, potentially-rewarding places they could have gone, and this one was clearly labelled "high-risk" compared with the others.

But that's often not the case. If the players only found one plot hook/lead, and it directed them into this cave, then they'll likely feel they were railroaded in here. And although it may be theoretically true that they didn't have to come this way, that's not how they'll see it. Killing them in that case is - harsh, and should be avoided if possible.

In the case of a phase spider: I wouldn't hesitate to fudge the damage and/or poison damage rolls as necessary to keep the PC alive-but-unconscious, and his/her mates should be more than able to distract the spider long enough to stabilise them. Spiders are neither intelligent, nor particularly vindictive, and there's no profit for them in finishing off one victim if its mates won't let it alone to eat them.

I have the opposite reaction. I do tend to play like a paranoid nutcase--see my sig--but if I feel like the DM is fudging to keep me alive, I start feeling like my decisions don't matter, like there are no consequences, and I'm stuck following the rails without even the chance to lose. I wasn't kidding when I said I get twitchy if my character stays alive too long (or at least never gets close to death, in more recent editions, or if using the optional DMG sidebar -10hp rule in 2e). But playing like a paranoid nutcase doesn't mean I won't go into the Tomb of Horrors, just that I'm bringing a 10ft pole and some iron spikes and some rope and all the other adventuring gear. I'll bite the plot hook, just play it cautiously when I do. Because then, if I survive, I feel like I accomplished something, like all my survival tactics and roleplaying decisions achieved something. My skills, decisions, precautions, and plans (and luck) mattered. If I can't lose, if my character can't even get killed, I don't feel like I can really succeed or accomplish anything. It's like a participation trophy. (Exception of course being Planescape: Torment, where your main character can't die but oh Gods can you still fail.) But that's just me, and obviously different people react differently to character death.

[NichG]

That's fine, if the players felt they had real, meaningful choices about where to go. That is to say, there were at least two or three feasible, potentially-rewarding places they could have gone, and this one was clearly labelled "high-risk" compared with the others.

But that's often not the case. If the players only found one plot hook/lead, and it directed them into this cave, then they'll likely feel they were railroaded in here. And although it may be theoretically true that they didn't have to come this way, that's not how they'll see it. Killing them in that case is - harsh, and should be avoided if possible.

Well, if the players are already at the point where deciding 'we don't go into the cave, what else ya got?' is something they're doing... The cave example is kind of vague anyhow, and it matters what kind of campaign structure is in place. I'm assuming something that isn't strictly linear, so that the choice of 'we don't go into the cave' is actually not inherently nonsensical. If the campaign really is so linear that there isn't really a choice to not go into the cave, I don't see why the DM needs to be concerned with players refusing to go on the adventure - they're basically just saying 'hey, I don't want to play in this campaign', which is fine if its not to their tastes.

[Satinavian]

Nobody likes to die. But you have to accept that dying is a part of the game. Otherwise you're not gonna have a game, you're just gonna have a player dragging everyone else down and preventing adventure from happening.

If players don't like a game with lots of PC-deaths, you can't force them to like it. Neither can you force them to not try to limit the number of deaths. Because that is what they naturally would do to have fun in the game.

I have the opposite reaction. I do tend to play like a paranoid nutcase--see my sig--but if I feel like the DM is fudging to keep me alive, I start feeling like my decisions don't matter, like there are no consequences, and I'm stuck following the rails without even the chance to lose.

Yes, that is another problem, especcially with mixed risk expactations in the same group. Personally i think the best way to get different player wishes together is to move the risk from character death to someonething else. It could be a meta-ressource which can be used to prevent a death but could also be used in other interesting ways or it could be a conflict that is not inherently deadly from the beginning. In both cases there is no need to fudge to keep people alive, there are still consequences and risks.
If this is still not enough and some players want explicitely risk of death, others don't, you could try different rules for different people, but i don't like that very much.

[Ricky S]

There needs to be some sort of danger otherwise whats the point. I dont want my character to die but I played in a game once where no matter what happened the dm would ensure the party survived. I asked the Dm about it and he denied it so I kept doing stupidly dangerous acts and the Dm still didnt kill my character so i just quit because whats the point if there is no challenge

[Actana]

What always interests me most about these discussions is how common the equation of "Losing = Death" seems to be. As if the only meaningful way to lose is to die, and as such the chance of death (=losing) needs to be there. Losing is one thing, losing by dying is another thing entirely and far, far more severe a consequence.

To me, if the only way to "lose" an encounter is to die, then that encounter is tremendously poorly constructed. Almost all encounters that aren't somehow climactic or otherwise super important should at least try to incorporate ways for the characters to lose without dying.

[Mastikator]

You can have entire campaigns where none of the PCs actually end up dying and it doesn't really change much.

Having entire campaigns where the PCs are never in danger is not what this is about.