Yes I have, and I will provide a couple of examples. In the first I have played in a couple of tournaments in which you got 1 PC and if you dyed that was it (in fact my first game ever I dyed in the first room and was out). In some home games we had a player who would get silly and kill themselves and ask to make a new PC, and the problem was they would optimize the PC for the moment and then when it was not optimized die and start the cycle again. So we decided to try an put a stop to the cycle by having some rule to limit PC respawn that worked for most of the group and was in the spirit of the play style we were aiming for.
Often I will have a PC sit out 1-2 games or play a NPC or the monsters if their PC dies while I get to a point where I can get a new PC into the game. At other times the PC's have more abilities then a normal PC so I have to figure out a way to balance the new PC with out the specials with a standard book PC (do I use levels, magic items or something else).
Over on the Discord there was a rookie DM who tried this on their second game out and it ended disastrously.
What happened?
The user came to the DM Discussion channel to ask for advice about their upcoming game and told us that their players all asked for and signed up for a game where they get one character each and were out of the game if that one character died. If the players hadn't asked for it we all would have said "under no circumstances should you do this" but as it was we kept cautioning them to maybe consider something else. They agonized about the implementation for weeks but went through with it. Second session in, one of the characters died and the rest of the party, on a spur of the moment decision, committed suicide. Weeks of planning down the drain because the format of the idea made the game itself have diminishing returns after even one death.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Canto alla vita alla sua bellezza ad ogni sua ferita ogni sua carezza!
I sing to life and to its tragic beauty To pain and to strife, but all that dances through me The rise and the fall, I've lived through it all!
Yeah, I told the DM that the players were being extremely rude, especially after having signed up for this format of play. There would not have been time for a passing cleric, since it all happened in one combat, but even so I believe they had nixed resurrections as part of the setting.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Canto alla vita alla sua bellezza ad ogni sua ferita ogni sua carezza!
I sing to life and to its tragic beauty To pain and to strife, but all that dances through me The rise and the fall, I've lived through it all!
I wasn't there but it sounds like the players wanted out of the game. I'm not fully convinced therefore it was caused by the no-re-rolls stipulation
By all reports, they did not just want out of the game. They went back and retroactively changed some things to continue with the game. And they went on to play other games, too. The no rerolls was the bad decision they all made together and it made the game suffer for it. They thought it would make the game better and it did not.
I mean, what possible benefit could this format bring to a game?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Canto alla vita alla sua bellezza ad ogni sua ferita ogni sua carezza!
I sing to life and to its tragic beauty To pain and to strife, but all that dances through me The rise and the fall, I've lived through it all!
I can only think maybe some players think a "lethal dismissal" would encourage more "serious, deliberative" playing? I don't think it's particularly good thinking, but I could see it being schemed up by players who stumble across a YouTube or other online take down of "modern" 5e playing having no stakes, etc. In other words, it can be a reactionary playstyle.
Again, I think "dead and done" is fine for one shot type adventures, survival horror, and other scenarios where the abbreviated game is something like "last person standing" or "no one gets out alive." But for extended campaign play? It's hard enough getting players to regularly show up as it is over an extended campaign so compounding that with sudden death elimination just seems a silly constraint.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
I am reminded of the 40+ year campaign that some guy is running at the moment. If you die in his game and have no backup (the way to have this is not made clear), you are out of his game.
You invest in a CRPG on steam, make your first character. As you adventure your character dies and the game auto deletes from your steam account and if you want to keep playing you have to invest more money into buying it again.
Sounds like a bad deal, like your question from my point of view.
I played that way in Skyrim where if a character dies I delete them and start over, but that was only as a challenge to myself, not my preferred play style.
It is possible to play 1 to X without dieing. Seems like that possibility is being ignored.
Resurrection spell are allowed. Hello College of Creation Bard with True Resurrection.
Could only be an issue at low levels.
The first and the last thing makes it even worse! Imagine being shut out from your D&D group because your 1st level character died and no one could afford a resurrection and then they play all the way to level 20 without you. Terrible!
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Canto alla vita alla sua bellezza ad ogni sua ferita ogni sua carezza!
I sing to life and to its tragic beauty To pain and to strife, but all that dances through me The rise and the fall, I've lived through it all!
It is possible to play 1 to X without dieing. Seems like that possibility is being ignored.
Resurrection spell are allowed. Hello College of Creation Bard with True Resurrection.
Could only be an issue at low levels.
May I ask why you want this? I do not believe there is a lot of benefit to approaching the game with a punitive mindset. Playing should be fun. Being kicked out of a game is not fun, but maybe I am just not seeing it.
I thinking a "Thou shall not pass!" or similar moment will have a lot more meaning/tension/weight feeling if the player is playing "one and done". If it not what's i think it will be there's always the next campaign.
I thinking a "Thou shall not pass!" or similar moment will have a lot more meaning/tension/weight feeling if the player is playing "one and done". If it not what's i think it will be there's always the next campaign.
Okay I think I understand why you might be interested in this now. I will say that I do not believe you can manufacturer tension in this way, at least not without also inadvertently taking in some OOC tension, which should be avoided. I cannot imagine a player not feeling slighted should they be the unfortunate person kicked out of the game. My game does not have this, but it is considered a ‘heavy’ kind of game. The weight of the player’s choices matters a great deal to some of my players and not at all to some. You cannot make a player care more than they are prepared to care and some players have fun by not caring so much. I cater to both in my game.
Honestly, it may have the exact opposite of your intended effect. I am not a player often. Mostly, I DM. I do play under a pretty ‘grind house’ DM and I never get invested in my characters while playing at his tables. To me, your announcement that you will kick me out of your game if I die is an announcement that I should not care about what happens in this game. It is a book I will never finish, a movie I will never get past intermission, a party I will pass out in during the first 30 minutes. There is not much being offered here except potentially frustration and rejection.
I would not DM a game with this hanging over the player’s heads, but maybe you can make it seem fun. If you can, please share with us your experiences so that anyone else who finds it interesting can replicate it.
It is possible to play 1 to X without dieing. Seems like that possibility is being ignored.
Resurrection spell are allowed. Hello College of Creation Bard with True Resurrection.
Could only be an issue at low levels.
That's like saying that, if you play this game, you have to roll a d6 and if it's a 1, you'll never play D&D again, that it only matters if you roll a 1. I mean, sure, that's true, but why add such negative stakes when there's nothing to be gained other than the thrill of getting close to rolling a 1 and getting the punishment? It being unlikely to actually come to fruition doesn't affect the fundamental mathematics. You're adding a substantial downside without really an up to it.
Do what you like, it's your table. Hope you have fun. I'm just not convinced that you'll be happy with the result, for what it's worth.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
Do what you will, but it's against my recommendation. I don't think you need the threat of being kicked out of the group in order to make the loss of a character tense. The people who would get attached to their character will feel that loss anyway, and the people who don't get attached to their characters will just take it as a threat to "git gud."
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Canto alla vita alla sua bellezza ad ogni sua ferita ogni sua carezza!
I sing to life and to its tragic beauty To pain and to strife, but all that dances through me The rise and the fall, I've lived through it all!
I mean I listen to people play Dnd, but that's technically at work when I'm doing other things, I'm not sure I'd be invested into listening to things like that outside of work (maybe in the background while on the computer or something but my full focus is never there). I can't imagine wanting to play at a table and investing any time knowing that if I die for some reason that's it (also from the way it sounds, I'm not even sure resurrection is even allowed at the table... but that's just me).
DnD has enough frustrating moments that I would never pile that onto myself as a player or DM by adding in a rule set that just makes things less worthwhile if things go south. The game can still be tailored to be fun, hard, and challenging without needing some this one and done restriction... but it's up to both the players and the DM to make that fun.
Granted if that's the tables fun, I'm not going to argue against it, folks can always do what they want at there own table.
I thinking a "Thou shall not pass!" or similar moment will have a lot more meaning/tension/weight feeling if the player is playing "one and done". If it not what's i think it will be there's always the next campaign.
Not a great example since the character in question there survived and came back after an extensive sidequest (sorry to anyone for spoilers). If anything, "one and done" will lead to counter-heroic self-preservation if anyone is invested in their character. Yes a character can make it from level 1 to X without dying, it's more often than not accomplished through protective, self-preservational playstyle and the luck of the dice.
All this overwhelming negative comments, but I think I'll give the idea a go. It's just a game. What's the worst that can happen? ;)
The worst? How about this: You might have enjoyed playing with players whose characters died, and when you try another campaign those players aren't available since they now play in games without such cutthroat membership rules or just moved onto other hobbies. And to make it even further worse, your surviving players migrate to those groups too because they liked playing with those players as well.
A good table to play with is a gift, the reason why your query has received such unfavorable responses is because your respondents understand that and they see creating a "mechanic" for kicking players for in game events as a game-defeating concept.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Yes I have, and I will provide a couple of examples. In the first I have played in a couple of tournaments in which you got 1 PC and if you dyed that was it (in fact my first game ever I dyed in the first room and was out). In some home games we had a player who would get silly and kill themselves and ask to make a new PC, and the problem was they would optimize the PC for the moment and then when it was not optimized die and start the cycle again. So we decided to try an put a stop to the cycle by having some rule to limit PC respawn that worked for most of the group and was in the spirit of the play style we were aiming for.
Often I will have a PC sit out 1-2 games or play a NPC or the monsters if their PC dies while I get to a point where I can get a new PC into the game. At other times the PC's have more abilities then a normal PC so I have to figure out a way to balance the new PC with out the specials with a standard book PC (do I use levels, magic items or something else).
Good Luck
What happened?
The user came to the DM Discussion channel to ask for advice about their upcoming game and told us that their players all asked for and signed up for a game where they get one character each and were out of the game if that one character died. If the players hadn't asked for it we all would have said "under no circumstances should you do this" but as it was we kept cautioning them to maybe consider something else. They agonized about the implementation for weeks but went through with it. Second session in, one of the characters died and the rest of the party, on a spur of the moment decision, committed suicide. Weeks of planning down the drain because the format of the idea made the game itself have diminishing returns after even one death.
Canto alla vita
alla sua bellezza
ad ogni sua ferita
ogni sua carezza!
I sing to life and to its tragic beauty
To pain and to strife, but all that dances through me
The rise and the fall, I've lived through it all!
That sounds like a full-on player rebellion to me.
could the DM have not found a passing cleric with the resurrection spell?
Yeah, I told the DM that the players were being extremely rude, especially after having signed up for this format of play. There would not have been time for a passing cleric, since it all happened in one combat, but even so I believe they had nixed resurrections as part of the setting.
Canto alla vita
alla sua bellezza
ad ogni sua ferita
ogni sua carezza!
I sing to life and to its tragic beauty
To pain and to strife, but all that dances through me
The rise and the fall, I've lived through it all!
I wasn't there but it sounds like the players wanted out of the game. I'm not fully convinced therefore it was caused by the no-re-rolls stipulation
By all reports, they did not just want out of the game. They went back and retroactively changed some things to continue with the game. And they went on to play other games, too. The no rerolls was the bad decision they all made together and it made the game suffer for it. They thought it would make the game better and it did not.
I mean, what possible benefit could this format bring to a game?
Canto alla vita
alla sua bellezza
ad ogni sua ferita
ogni sua carezza!
I sing to life and to its tragic beauty
To pain and to strife, but all that dances through me
The rise and the fall, I've lived through it all!
I can only think maybe some players think a "lethal dismissal" would encourage more "serious, deliberative" playing? I don't think it's particularly good thinking, but I could see it being schemed up by players who stumble across a YouTube or other online take down of "modern" 5e playing having no stakes, etc. In other words, it can be a reactionary playstyle.
Again, I think "dead and done" is fine for one shot type adventures, survival horror, and other scenarios where the abbreviated game is something like "last person standing" or "no one gets out alive." But for extended campaign play? It's hard enough getting players to regularly show up as it is over an extended campaign so compounding that with sudden death elimination just seems a silly constraint.
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
I am reminded of the 40+ year campaign that some guy is running at the moment. If you die in his game and have no backup (the way to have this is not made clear), you are out of his game.
DM mostly, Player occasionally | Session 0 form | He/Him/They/Them
EXTENDED SIGNATURE!
Doctor/Published Scholar/Science and Healthcare Advocate/Critter/Trekkie/Gandalf with a Glock
Try DDB free: Free Rules (2024), premade PCs, adventures, one shots, encounters, SC, homebrew, more
Answers: physical books, purchases, and subbing.
Check out my life-changing
You invest in a CRPG on steam, make your first character. As you adventure your character dies and the game auto deletes from your steam account and if you want to keep playing you have to invest more money into buying it again.
Sounds like a bad deal, like your question from my point of view.
I played that way in Skyrim where if a character dies I delete them and start over, but that was only as a challenge to myself, not my preferred play style.
EZD6 by DM Scotty
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/en/product/397599/EZD6-Core-Rulebook?
It is possible to play 1 to X without dieing. Seems like that possibility is being ignored.
Resurrection spell are allowed. Hello College of Creation Bard with True Resurrection.
Could only be an issue at low levels.
The first and the last thing makes it even worse! Imagine being shut out from your D&D group because your 1st level character died and no one could afford a resurrection and then they play all the way to level 20 without you. Terrible!
Canto alla vita
alla sua bellezza
ad ogni sua ferita
ogni sua carezza!
I sing to life and to its tragic beauty
To pain and to strife, but all that dances through me
The rise and the fall, I've lived through it all!
All this overwhelming negative comments, but I think I'll give the idea a go. It's just a game. What's the worst that can happen? ;)
May I ask why you want this? I do not believe there is a lot of benefit to approaching the game with a punitive mindset. Playing should be fun. Being kicked out of a game is not fun, but maybe I am just not seeing it.
DM mostly, Player occasionally | Session 0 form | He/Him/They/Them
EXTENDED SIGNATURE!
Doctor/Published Scholar/Science and Healthcare Advocate/Critter/Trekkie/Gandalf with a Glock
Try DDB free: Free Rules (2024), premade PCs, adventures, one shots, encounters, SC, homebrew, more
Answers: physical books, purchases, and subbing.
Check out my life-changing
I thinking a "Thou shall not pass!" or similar moment will have a lot more meaning/tension/weight feeling if the player is playing "one and done". If it not what's i think it will be there's always the next campaign.
Okay I think I understand why you might be interested in this now. I will say that I do not believe you can manufacturer tension in this way, at least not without also inadvertently taking in some OOC tension, which should be avoided. I cannot imagine a player not feeling slighted should they be the unfortunate person kicked out of the game. My game does not have this, but it is considered a ‘heavy’ kind of game. The weight of the player’s choices matters a great deal to some of my players and not at all to some. You cannot make a player care more than they are prepared to care and some players have fun by not caring so much. I cater to both in my game.
Honestly, it may have the exact opposite of your intended effect. I am not a player often. Mostly, I DM. I do play under a pretty ‘grind house’ DM and I never get invested in my characters while playing at his tables. To me, your announcement that you will kick me out of your game if I die is an announcement that I should not care about what happens in this game. It is a book I will never finish, a movie I will never get past intermission, a party I will pass out in during the first 30 minutes. There is not much being offered here except potentially frustration and rejection.
I would not DM a game with this hanging over the player’s heads, but maybe you can make it seem fun. If you can, please share with us your experiences so that anyone else who finds it interesting can replicate it.
DM mostly, Player occasionally | Session 0 form | He/Him/They/Them
EXTENDED SIGNATURE!
Doctor/Published Scholar/Science and Healthcare Advocate/Critter/Trekkie/Gandalf with a Glock
Try DDB free: Free Rules (2024), premade PCs, adventures, one shots, encounters, SC, homebrew, more
Answers: physical books, purchases, and subbing.
Check out my life-changing
That's like saying that, if you play this game, you have to roll a d6 and if it's a 1, you'll never play D&D again, that it only matters if you roll a 1. I mean, sure, that's true, but why add such negative stakes when there's nothing to be gained other than the thrill of getting close to rolling a 1 and getting the punishment? It being unlikely to actually come to fruition doesn't affect the fundamental mathematics. You're adding a substantial downside without really an up to it.
Do what you like, it's your table. Hope you have fun. I'm just not convinced that you'll be happy with the result, for what it's worth.
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
Do what you will, but it's against my recommendation. I don't think you need the threat of being kicked out of the group in order to make the loss of a character tense. The people who would get attached to their character will feel that loss anyway, and the people who don't get attached to their characters will just take it as a threat to "git gud."
Canto alla vita
alla sua bellezza
ad ogni sua ferita
ogni sua carezza!
I sing to life and to its tragic beauty
To pain and to strife, but all that dances through me
The rise and the fall, I've lived through it all!
I mean I listen to people play Dnd, but that's technically at work when I'm doing other things, I'm not sure I'd be invested into listening to things like that outside of work (maybe in the background while on the computer or something but my full focus is never there). I can't imagine wanting to play at a table and investing any time knowing that if I die for some reason that's it (also from the way it sounds, I'm not even sure resurrection is even allowed at the table... but that's just me).
DnD has enough frustrating moments that I would never pile that onto myself as a player or DM by adding in a rule set that just makes things less worthwhile if things go south. The game can still be tailored to be fun, hard, and challenging without needing some this one and done restriction... but it's up to both the players and the DM to make that fun.
Granted if that's the tables fun, I'm not going to argue against it, folks can always do what they want at there own table.
Not a great example since the character in question there survived and came back after an extensive sidequest (sorry to anyone for spoilers). If anything, "one and done" will lead to counter-heroic self-preservation if anyone is invested in their character. Yes a character can make it from level 1 to X without dying, it's more often than not accomplished through protective, self-preservational playstyle and the luck of the dice.
The worst? How about this: You might have enjoyed playing with players whose characters died, and when you try another campaign those players aren't available since they now play in games without such cutthroat membership rules or just moved onto other hobbies. And to make it even further worse, your surviving players migrate to those groups too because they liked playing with those players as well.
A good table to play with is a gift, the reason why your query has received such unfavorable responses is because your respondents understand that and they see creating a "mechanic" for kicking players for in game events as a game-defeating concept.
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.