Unpopular D&D Opinions Part 2: Popular To Talk About

[KorvinStarmast]

While I'm not saying D&D should go that far, it should certainly include at the very least an optional rule which just says 'PCs can't die without player agreement'.

Wrong game for what you want.

[icefractal]

Not really? I mean I'm not saying it should be the default rules, but as an optional rule it works fine. Heck, maybe I'm arguably using it partially now, because I'm running a setting where resurrection is easier, and "to the death" is not typical for most combat?

It's kind of contradictory anyway - "death is necessary to have real risk/consequences" but also "just roll up a new character, it takes like 10 minutes".

[Elves]

It's kind of contradictory anyway - "death is necessary to have real risk/consequences" but also "just roll up a new character, it takes like 10 minutes".

It's not like any consequences ingame actually harm you IRL, so the whole thing depends on player buy-in. If you want real consequences I guess you set up a betting pot between two parties trying to achieve the same quest but that's a disaster in the making.

One thing I do think the game could do better at is creating options for players whose PCs die so that they don't have to sit out the rest of the session if no raise dead is immediately available. Maybe a set of spells like "summon wraith of the fallen" or "summon guardian angel" that gives the player a little token to control that has some kind of weak impact (move into oppo's/ally's space to give them -2/+2 on atk rolls). But maybe that's less interesting than the classic fallback of letting them play oppos.

[Pex]

That's clearly not true, high-lethality games are fine. Different games can have different expectations. Personally, I find it odd that 5e made it harder to die when there's no level loss for raise dead and it takes 10 minutes to make a new character -- seems more friendly to high lethality than other editions, not less.

In 3.5e, where there's level loss for rezzing until very high levels, yes there's a point where death is too frequent: when the PCs aren't playing badly but aren't, on net, gaining XP at a reasonable rate. In 5e I wouldn't say there is though. If everybody gets the death penalties that just means downtime until they recover.

It's very easy for a DM to kill PCs. A high lethality game means the DM is treating the game like he's the players' opponent. A Killer DM is not something to aspire.

[LibraryOgre]

While I'm not saying D&D should go that far, it should certainly include at the very least an optional rule which just says 'PCs can't die without player agreement'.

Wrong game for what you want.

Not necessarily. As others have said, it's all about consequences... there's a fair variety of non-lethal consequences you can have that don't result in death. Magic items taken away. Story options closed off. Stories entirely rewritten... "Ok, this was a game of high adventure, but NOW it's become a game of escaping from slavery in the goblin mines".

The problem D&D has is that it does not mechanically model a lot of things other than death. Earlier editions had some other things, like level drain, but that was a colossal pain.

It's very easy for a DM to kill PCs. A high lethality game means the DM is treating the game like he's the players' opponent. A Killer DM is not something to aspire.

Or, he expected the players to do something differently. While the DM is not supposed to be the player's opponent, they are playing the character's opponents, and a high lethality game may come from the DM playing their characters, especially if the player's aren't trying to lessen their risk.

[Pex]

Or, he expected the players to do something differently. While the DM is not supposed to be the player's opponent, they are playing the character's opponents, and a high lethality game may come from the DM playing their characters, especially if the player's aren't trying to lessen their risk.

If the players keep making errors of judgment such that a PC dies every session, then as I wrote something is wrong. The game is not that hard or lethal. Raise Dead, Revivify, etc., just means there doesn't have to be permadeath. I'm not talking about that. The game is not that hard or lethal for a PC to have died at all to need those spells.

[Elves]

If the players keep making errors of judgment such that a PC dies every session, then as I wrote something is wrong. The game is not that hard or lethal. Raise Dead, Revivify, etc., just means there doesn't have to be permadeath. I'm not talking about that. The game is not that hard or lethal for a PC to have died at all to need those spells.

You say it's wrong, what is actually wrong with it?
The game is tactics and strategy, different people want it tuned differently.

[LibraryOgre]

If the players keep making errors of judgment such that a PC dies every session, then as I wrote something is wrong. The game is not that hard or lethal. Raise Dead, Revivify, etc., just means there doesn't have to be permadeath. I'm not talking about that. The game is not that hard or lethal for a PC to have died at all to need those spells.

Look, a first level character of any class can conceivably die from a single sword strike, in any edition except 4th (and even then, they may from some daily powers). By 5th level, you're stouter, but all it takes is a couple fireballs and you're likely dead. This is especially true if you're talking about AD&D or OD&D, where HP was lower (no assumption of full HP at 1st level, no bonus HP till 15 Constitution), and saves were less sure.

The game is absolutely lethal if enemies use the same level of tactics that are expected of PCs. A couple battlefield control spells and some mooks with bows can whittle down a party relatively easily, especially at the lower levels.

[Tanarii]

If the players keep making errors of judgment such that a PC dies every session, then as I wrote something is wrong. The game is not that hard or lethal. Raise Dead, Revivify, etc., just means there doesn't have to be permadeath. I'm not talking about that. The game is not that hard or lethal for a PC to have died at all to need those spells.

You say it's wrong, what is actually wrong with it?
The game is tactics and strategy, different people want it tuned differently.

Having run a campaign that went from extremely common TPKs to far less common TPKs, turned out "what was wrong" was the players needed to unlearn habits excessively CaS DMs had trained them in. Mainly that decisions outside of any one given combat had consequences on survival, especially decisions to push on or stop and retreat. But also that details can matter. It's not like I didn't tell players this before they started. But habits are ingrained. As they got better at understanding, it created a culture that they then inducted new players into, and TPKs dropped rapidly.

Of course, I say 'player habits', but another way of looking at it is they had to learn a new DM.

[Pex]

Look, a first level character of any class can conceivably die from a single sword strike, in any edition except 4th (and even then, they may from some daily powers). By 5th level, you're stouter, but all it takes is a couple fireballs and you're likely dead. This is especially true if you're talking about AD&D or OD&D, where HP was lower (no assumption of full HP at 1st level, no bonus HP till 15 Constitution), and saves were less sure.

The game is absolutely lethal if enemies use the same level of tactics that are expected of PCs. A couple battlefield control spells and some mooks with bows can whittle down a party relatively easily, especially at the lower levels.

And yet there aren't strings of TPKs of campaigns everywhere. PCs get to live to level 2, level 6, and beyond. Going by modules the goblin ambush in Lost Mine of Phandever is absolutely brutal. The unlucky player who rolls low on Perception and low on initiative can take two rounds of goblin attacks before he gets to do anything, possibly dropping before the player even had his first turn of the game and it's only been 5 minutes since the game started. Welcome to 5E. Yet the players win that fight, even as far as killing every goblin and not one crate lost.

As I said, it's very easy for a DM to kill a PC. Doing so every game session is not something to aspire. How many game sessions before a PC death happens is proper I cannot define, but the game is not played wrong if it never happens. When it does happen, shucks darn, so sad, but eventually it can reach a point where it's too much. Something is wrong. Could be the players. Could be the DM. Doesn't even need to be sinister. The player is not understanding something. The DM is making a mistake in encounter design, but something is wrong.

[Batcathat]

As I said, it's very easy for a DM to kill a PC. Doing so every game session is not something to aspire. How many game sessions before a PC death happens is proper I cannot define, but the game is not played wrong if it never happens. When it does happen, shucks darn, so sad, but eventually it can reach a point where it's too much. Something is wrong. Could be the players. Could be the DM. Doesn't even need to be sinister. The player is not understanding something. The DM is making a mistake in encounter design, but something is wrong.

So no deaths at all isn't wrong, but too much death is automatically wrong? Granted, I probably wouldn't want to play in a campaign that lethal myself, but I wouldn't rule out that there are people who would. Is it a red flag? Maybe, but it's also entirely possible that it's exactly the sort of game both GM and players want.

[LibraryOgre]

And yet there aren't strings of TPKs of campaigns everywhere. PCs get to live to level 2, level 6, and beyond. Going by modules the goblin ambush in Lost Mine of Phandever is absolutely brutal. The unlucky player who rolls low on Perception and low on initiative can take two rounds of goblin attacks before he gets to do anything, possibly dropping before the player even had his first turn of the game and it's only been 5 minutes since the game started. Welcome to 5E. Yet the players win that fight, even as far as killing every goblin and not one crate lost.

AD&D introduced Death's Door rules specifically because so many people WERE dying, even in reasonable fights. Low-level D&D PCs are frequently made out of slightly moist cardboard, and can die due to the will of Beshaba, not because of bad encounter design.

"The DM's dice hate us" is a meme for a reason.

[Telok]

This is especially true if you're talking about AD&D or OD&D, where HP was lower (no assumption of full HP at 1st level, no bonus HP till 15 Constitution), and saves were less sure.

One thing I like to emphasize, since there are so many players these days who only know OD&D/AD&D 1e from chatter & gossip, is that early D&D had a very different philosophy of saving throws. They were intended as a last chance luck mechanic for the character to not die or not be royally screwed when the player screwed up, attribute bonuses were only a minor factor in a few of them. They also universally got better as the characters leveled up, instead of the WotC trend of having many saves increase more slowly (or not at all) than save DCs.

Current D&D basically uses saves as another form of AC, most explicitly in 4e where they swapped who rolled the d20 and listed them as 'non-AC defenses'. You can think of the current saves as "status effect & spell AC" if you want to be more in line with their actual in-game useage.

This makes all the early edition "save or die" effects much more understandable. You only rolled a poison save against a poison that would take you out, anything less was lumped into the damage roll of the attack that carried the poison. Likewise, the assumption was that rushing blindly into danger without taking any precautions was foolhardy & likely to get you killed. There were supposed to be (in correctly written & DMed scenarios) in-game indicators of a save-or-die type situation, even if it was just the knowledge that high end dragons & liches have abilities that are save-or-die and you know when you're headed towards one.

[Pex]

AD&D introduced Death's Door rules specifically because so many people WERE dying, even in reasonable fights. Low-level D&D PCs are frequently made out of slightly moist cardboard, and can die due to the will of Beshaba, not because of bad encounter design.

"The DM's dice hate us" is a meme for a reason.

Yes, and thankfully D&D has evolved from those days. The 2E DMG taught DMs to be the players' adversary. The Stingy DM. The Killer DM. The Tyrant DM. They were accepted norms. That changed with 3E. 3E taught DMs to play with their players, not against them. 4E and 5E continue that tradition. Nowadays players have learned to walk away from those DMs. They aren't to be tolerated. The Stingy DM isn't as well defined in 5E. Rather, some levels of stinginess in 3E and 4E are acceptable in 5E. It's subjective, but even so at some point even in 5E a DM can go too far in being stingy and the players will revolt. 3E and 4E did facilitate the Monty Hall DM which has always been derided, so 5E chose to dial it back a bit.

[Elves]

Not sure what you're saying Pex. "Killer DM" usually means acting in bad faith or power tripping. That's different from creating oppositional scenarios where the PCs have to play well to survive, which is the premise of the game.

Yes, frequent deaths can mean there's a mismatch between GM and player expectations or skill level. But it can also just reflect a high "difficulty setting", which everyone may be on board with.

When is it too hard? When the players aren't doing anything wrong yet are dying so much that it becomes irritating. Where that threshold is will differ between groups. It seems like you have an instinctive sense of where that is for you but that doesn't mean other DMs are "tyrant DMs". Especially if you're playing 5e, where death is less punitive than ever before.

[Max_Killjoy]

"There used to be a lot of PC deaths in D&D, so rules were added or changed to mitigate that."
"D&D isn't that lethal, excessive PC deaths are caused by bad play, bad DMs, or bad encounter design."
"Here are examples of how D&D used to be too lethal, and as further evidence, things that were added to changed to address that in newer editions."
"D&D is not too lethal, it has evolved since the editions when it was."

[Anonymouswizard]

"There used to be a lot of PC deaths in D&D, so rules were added or changed to mitigate that."
"D&D isn't that lethal, excessive PC deaths are caused by bad play, bad DMs, or bad encounter design."
"Here are examples of how D&D used to be too lethal, and as further evidence, things that were added to changed to address that in newer editions."
"D&D is not too lethal, it has evolved since the editions when it was."

Both sides arguing for the same thing is nothing new.

My suggestion: D&D should move towards a more M&M style 'attacks should be declared as lethal or non-lethal, then note the effects that assuming lethality or nonlethality has.

[RandomPeasant]

I will say that the suggestion that player deaths might happen "because the DM wants players to do something differently" sounds like bad DMing to me. If you want players do to something differently tell them that. Don't repeatedly kill their characters until they figure out what they're supposed to be doing.

[Pex]

"There used to be a lot of PC deaths in D&D, so rules were added or changed to mitigate that."
"D&D isn't that lethal, excessive PC deaths are caused by bad play, bad DMs, or bad encounter design."
"Here are examples of how D&D used to be too lethal, and as further evidence, things that were added to changed to address that in newer editions."
"D&D is not too lethal, it has evolved since the editions when it was."

I always thought Killer DMs were bad. I had quit a 2E campaign because of it, but back then I was in the minority in thinking Killer DMs were bad for the game. DMs used to boast about it.

[Batcathat]

I always thought Killer DMs were bad. I had quit a 2E campaign because of it, but back then I was in the minority in thinking Killer DMs were bad for the game. DMs used to boast about it.

Even aside from the social and moral aspects of it, I don't understand why anyone would boast about that. A GM is omnipotent within the game, it'd be like a human bragging about stomping out ants (except that the ants probably have a better chance of winning).

[Pex]

Even aside from the social and moral aspects of it, I don't understand why anyone would boast about that. A GM is omnipotent within the game, it'd be like a human bragging about stomping out ants (except that the ants probably have a better chance of winning).

It was an ego boost. It made themselves sound tough. To play let alone survive their game you need to be a player of quality like they are. They believed the higher the PC death count the better the DM they were.

I still remember overhearing a couple of DMs (during 2E) comparing their house rules, and one DM was so proud of himself there was no magical healing in his game.

[Elves]

I always thought Killer DMs were bad. I had quit a 2E campaign because of it, but back then I was in the minority in thinking Killer DMs were bad for the game. DMs used to boast about it.

What's a "killer DM"? It seems like you're conflating DMs who, OOC, try to gib the players by giving them challenges they can't beat with those who, IC, accurately play foes as trying to kill the PCs.

You brought up the example of a goblin ambush as too lethal. Is having NPCs follow reasonable tactics like this being a killer DM?

[Batcathat]

It was an ego boost. It made themselves sound tough. To play let alone survive their game you need to be a player of quality like they are. They believed the higher the PC death count the better the DM they were.

Right, I get that it's the intent, it just seems so odd. Even if it's a first time GM and a party of extremely experienced players with ridiculously optimized characters, the GM could still kill them in the first battle ("Oh, you killed all those dragons? Well, it turns out that their bigger, badder brothers just arrived.")

Granted, it's not the weirdest thing people have bragged about, but it's up there.

[Tanarii]

What's a "killer DM"? It seems like you're conflating DMs who, OOC, try to gib the players by giving them challenges they can't beat with those who, IC, accurately play foes as trying to kill the PCs.

You brought up the example of a goblin ambush as too lethal. Is having NPCs follow reasonable tactics like this being a killer DM?

Exactly. There is a huge difference between "If you research adventuring sites appropriate to your capabilities, scout properly once on site to figure out what you can handle in combat and what you can't, don't overextend yourselves, and have a solid retreat plan in case things go sideways: you should live" and setting things up so PCs have no chance and no warning in a linear adventure.

Not everyone wants to play the former, and that's fine. But when they are told this is the style of play required, sign up for it, there's plenty of telegraphing (including outright warning about areas beyond their capacity), there are plenty of options for what they can choose to do, and they still skip one of the necessary steps die/TPK ... well, that's on the players.

Historical D&D really didn't make it clear that it's close to a meat grinder. Compare to DCC, which is very clear. Or compare to 5e, which is not even close and adventures/DMs just need to not do the latter.

For comparison, I've run Keep on the Borderlands with BECMI rules and 5e rules. Even with somewhat careful approach and pitting enemies against each other, it's entirely possible your group will TPK their first few forays, keeping a character alive long enough to get to level 2 is an accomplishment, and hitting 3 by the end not that likely. Playing with 5e characters, a group of players including occasional help by two Guard-stat henchmen had a dicey moment in their first foray. But they hit level 5 about 1/2 way through, allowing the Wizard to start fireballing the remaining main cavern populated caves.

[Vahnavoi]

I will say that the suggestion that player deaths might happen "because the DM wants players to do something differently" sounds like bad DMing to me. If you want players do to something differently tell them that. Don't repeatedly kill their characters until they figure out what they're supposed to be doing.

Character death is feedback telling players to do a thing differently. Game consequences for game things is how majority of games teach you to play them. Trial and error is one three basic ways in which people learn, trying to cut all of it out of game isn't worth it - then there's the fact that character and player elimination are basic ways in which a referee figure would enforce statements about what they want players to do.

[icefractal]

One playstyle that used to be more common in the past is the competitive / "test of survival" type of game. Tournament modules were an obvious example, but it was a thing in home games too. And there was definitely an attitude of "I'm more manly because I play meat-grinder dungeons" among a few (but a noisy few).

Personally, I think the improvement in video games (both variety of games available and ease of accessing those games) ate that playstyle's lunch. A speedrun of a video game is truly objective challenge. You can compare your time to anyone else playing it, because you know it was a fair competition, nobody's GM was fudging or making mistakes. And, importantly for learning to beat those challenges, iteration time is very fast. Try to beat the dragon without using any potions and you end up dying? Hit restart, immediately try the fight again, maximum learning possible. As opposed to "maybe a couple months later be facing a similar challenge". The game "I want to be the guy" is essentially an unfair killer GM in video game form, but it's enjoyable (IMO) because restarting from death is nearly instant.

And while I like that ok in video games, it's not what I'm looking for in TTRPGs. Situations where planning and tactics are key? They're great, but only if the planning and tactics have the potential for total success. You did everything right but still have a coin-flip chance of dying? No thanks.

And even then, it's one style that I sometimes enjoy, but wouldn't want to be the entirely of gaming. Other times, I'd rather kick in the door, go for style over substance in my tactics, and have that be a viable way to play. Or play a lower-stakes game where conflicts don't generally mean risking death or disaster. Challenge is one part of a balanced gaming breakfast, not the whole thing by itself.

[Anonymouswizard]

Character death is feedback telling players to do a thing differently. Game consequences for game things is how majority of games teach you to play them. Trial and error is one three basic ways in which people learn, trying to cut all of it out of game isn't worth it - then there's the fact that character and player elimination are basic ways in which a referee figure would enforce statements about what they want players to do.

Death does not have to be the only stakes, and overuse of death cheapens the stakes. At some point it becomes 'I died, oh well, somebody hand me a blank sheet'. Assuming the PCs have some form of goal setbacks can be more meaningful than outright death.

There's also an issue that D&D has very few mechanical setbacks other than 'you can't play for a while'. This isn't like Unknown Armies 3e where both the PCs and NPC groups have objective meters they can build, there's very few statuses that stick around, you can't really give a player a minor punishment and instead need to jump to major impediments. As controversial as they are at least death spirals inflict some kind of setback before 0hp.

Another idea, used in games like Fate or Storypath, is the idea of being Taken Out. Essentially when you take damage you can decide that instead of absorbing it by taking some form of penalty, you can declare you're out of the game for a bit and take no lasting consequences. Of course that only really works if there are consequences other than death.

[Tanarii]

Personally, I think the improvement in video games (both variety of games available and ease of accessing those games) ate that playstyle's lunch. A speedrun of a video game is truly objective challenge. You can compare your time to anyone else playing it, because you know it was a fair competition, nobody's GM was fudging or making mistakes. And, importantly for learning to beat those challenges, iteration time is very fast. Try to beat the dragon without using any potions and you end up dying? Hit restart, immediately try the fight again, maximum learning possible. As opposed to "maybe a couple months later be facing a similar challenge". The game "I want to be the guy" is essentially an unfair killer GM in video game form, but it's enjoyable (IMO) because restarting from death is nearly instant.

Clearly manly men need to play CCRPGs in permadeath mode.

Personally I won't do that for a CCRPG, but am happy to try in a TTRPG. I trust DMs not to screw us with a bug / crash.

[Elves]

There's also an issue that D&D has very few mechanical setbacks other than 'you can't play for a while'.

+1. The lack of injury rules creates a binary that's both unrealistic and bad for the game (because there's no way to penalize someone without kicking them out of the gameplay for a while, which is boring for them). In 4e and 5e, the post-rez penalty is essentially an injury penalty already; why not put that in front of death instead of behind it?

[Telok]

Dev talkies:
"Limb loss?"
"No fun, drop it."
"Level drain?"
"No fun, drop it."
"Insanity?"
"No fun, drop it."
"Lingering wounds?"
"No fun, drop it."
"Stat damage?"
"No fun, drop it."
"Diseases?"
"Heal checks, low level cure spell, and just cut the penalties to minor nuisances."
"Exhaustion?"
"Death spiral, we'll remove it next edition."
"Whats left?"
"Death. But we'll make it optional next edition."