I would not be too hard on your DM--things like this happen, especially if the DM is relatively inexperienced and does not have a great idea of how to balance traps and encounters. Balancing is a DM skill that does not really come from a book, and which most premade modules also do poorly (either resulting in things being too easy or too deadly), so errors like this can happen. This is particularly true at the opening levels--characters do not have very many hitpoints, so, if you are not thinking critically as a DM, you might accidently end up dealing the "twice that character's total HP" necessary to cause instant death.
It sucks killing a player via some stupid mechanism like "oops, I balanced this trap poorly and instantly killed them." Your DM likely feels a bit dumb and a bit guilty about what happened, and that might manifest anywhere on the guilt spectrum from them trying to double down on their decision, rather than admit they are the ones truly at fault, to them being willing to work with you. Keep that in mind when you talk with your DM--you are probably not the only one upset here.
Personally, if I were in your shoes, I would accept the death for what it is--a death. The thing that makes D&D most fun is the consequences to your actions--even if those consequences are the result of bad DM decisions, they still happened in the game, and asking someone to retcon something (at least to me) goes against the vibe of D&D. But just because you can accept the death occurred does not mean death has to be the end. Instead of just asking my DM to let me come back, or trying to get the party to go on some quest to revive me, I would ask the DM if they could work on some way to bring me back... but with some consequences imposed. Bonus points if you work with your DM to come up with a mechanism for resurrection that enhances the story--perhaps the mechanism is something related to the dungeon you are in, and how it treats death; or perhaps the mechanism is related to some kind of magical energy related to the overall plot of the campaign.
For example, embrace your personal fear of the character dying--and make that part of your character. In their fear of death, perhaps they cut a bargain with a Death or Undead Domain deity and come back... but come back with some kind of flaw. Maybe their soul is not whole; maybe they are now in debt with this god, and your DM can use that as the basis for future story moments or to give you secret tasks. Perhaps that deity is someone antagonistic to the big bad guy for the campaign... or perhaps they are the big bad themselves (which you and your character might not even know when you strike the deal).
You could also consider changing your race over to the Reborn Lineage--this is a catch-all "I was once something else, but I came back from the dead" race that works perfectly for this situation. If you really want to commit, you could change your class, becoming a Warlock, Cleric, Paladin (or something else) reflecting whatever bargain you struck to come back from the dead.
Another thing to add, if you do not strike a deal with your DM, you should not be too stringent on asking your party to revive you. Especially at low-levels, that might not be an easy task--which means you will be playing a new character for some time. A new character you will be growing attached to and want to keep playing--and then you are just engineering a situation where the entire party spends effort to bring back your first character... but you might, by that point, decide you want to keep playing the character you have played for, by that point, a longer time period.
So, you are going to buy a 3rd party product adventure module, which is not part of any official canon, and state that:
1. Your DM must allow it into the game.
2. Your party will cease whatever the DM has planned and instead head to this place and has access to this artifact.
There are already in--game mechanics for bringing a PC back from the dead. But a 1st level party can seldom afford such services (high level NPC clerics).
Similar to my advice not to double-check module mechanics, I'd encourage OP also not to seek out third-party (or even official) content with the express purpose of trying to persuade a DM to reverse a ruling. JustAFarmer has the right of it in that a DM ultimately decides what exists in a campaign - which includes what sources players can use. Heck, I myself ban a feat and racial trait that's in the Player's Handbook because it just doesn't suit my game or playstyle. Just because it exists doesn't obligate a DM to use it.
There's nothing wrong with talking to your DM and expressing your hopes. But I'd advise you not to turn this into your trying to manipulate her or the other players into you getting your way. Nobody enjoys being strong armed or guilt-tripped, and being a collaborative and respectful player helps the game continue to be fun for everyone. Moreso if you're playing with family. Real relationships come first, always.
For what it's worth, I have had a very similar experience as you. My level 4 fighter, at full health, died to a trap that the DM made far deadlier than was written. I deeply loved that character, and felt like I'd been cheated because I'd actually made my save and under normal circumstances would have just gone unconscious. The DM had his reasons, and at the time he thought that would make the story better. I rolled up a new character and the surviving party vowed to try to resurrect her someday - just like we vowed when our bard died to a mammoth at level 3. We thought it would be a quest for the campaign's epilogue or when my druid could cast a resurrection spell, but about 4 levels later, the DM approached me privately and said that he really regretted killing my fighter and asked if I'd like to bring her back. I completed that arc with my druid and ended up finishing the campaign as my resurrected fighter - battling against the corrupted undead version of our beloved bard the BBEG summoned. We restored the bard in the epilogue.
Character death sucks, and there are ways (if your DM allows it) for it not to be permanent. Sometimes it can happen in the normal course of the game. Sometimes it can be a special quest. Sometimes it is part of the "happily ever after" epilogue. And sometimes it doesn't happen at all. My encouragement is to be open to the ways death might be used to tell a really satisfying and unexpected story.
How much death there is at a table is often about an individual DM’s style.
Your DM hasn’t done anything “wrong” but if you want to bring your character back and she doesn’t then the two of you might just prefer different styles of D&D.
Personally I favor roleplay-oriented groups, which tend to be low-death. Some people would find that kind of table boring, other people love them. There’s not a “wrong answer” and a “right answer” here, just different ways to play.
When I’m the DM, characters can die, but only when it makes sense and doesn’t ruin somebody’s fun. If you knowingly take a major risk, or if you go out in a blaze of glory doing something heroic, you can die. If you’re someone who prefers the possibility of character death, you can die. But I’m not going to say “the dice decide and that’s that” if unexpected circumstances would kill a character in a way that’s no fun for a player.
In time you’ll be able to find tables that suit your style of play - there are plenty of no-death and low-death tables if that’s what's most fun for you.
Just don’t expect a DM to change their style to suit yours. You can ask your DM about bringing your character back, and the fact that she ended the session right after the death may mean there’s some hope (ending a session is sometimes a DM’s way of buying time to figure out what to do about something). But if she says no, respect that, don’t keep trying to change her mind. It’s up to her how she runs her table, and it’s up to you whether you want to play at that table or find a different one.
I would recommend not doing this. You will almost certainly be imposing a burden on the other players, who will not appreciate being ripped out of an ongoing quest to find ressurection magic (typically unavailable at early levels) for a low-level character.
I empathize with you, I really do. But you want to make sure that you're safeguarding the fun of everybody at the table.
Personally I favor roleplay-oriented groups, which tend to be low-death. Some people would find that kind of table boring, other people love them. There’s not a “wrong answer” and a “right answer” here, just different ways to play.
It is nice to see someone actually be honest, and state the truth about RP based tables. People that think RP is the most important part of the game cannot abide their PC's dying.
Sweeping generalization that proves absurdly uninformed when only one example can be found that says otherwise. Conveniently, I am such an example. I rank RP at the top as evidence in AED's thread on death and I also understand that death happens sometimes and can roll with it.
I simply confirmed the "sweeping generalization" made by another poster.
No, you are attempting to use the preferences of a single user to confirm your bias. Let's say you are correct though and everyone who prioritizes RP, including myself, cannot abide character deaths. What is your point?
Those of us more inclined to RP than combat are not universally against character deaths. I will grant, a LOT of our collective has a very hard time with them, but not all of us are entirely against them. I think I speak for the largest portion of the RP heavy side (possibly even all) in saying we, from EITHER side of the table, are strongly against pointless character deaths. To most of us, traps are supposed to give you a solid whack in the snoot, or a big inconvenience in your progress. They are rarely, if ever, intended to take a party member completely out.
A simile might be you go to swat your friend's cap off his head, but swing too close, and end up breaking his nose. You didn't want to actually mess him up, and if you were "god" you'd have guaranteed yourself to NOT break his nose.
I sill agree, the RP heavy side of D&D groups do usually have a pretty hard time on character death. Often we'll look for ways to reverse it (seeking someone to cast the magic or similar) or appeal to a DM for maybe a non-complete death solution/scenario. In any case, it does boil down to the DM. While I feel a DM is obligated to hear out a player who is feeling defeated or picked on, or "cheated" (not by breaking rules just from a REALLY crappy deal) I also know that the DM is within their right to stand on the ruling made at the time with no changes if they see fit. DM has absolute authority, but to me, also a responsibility to converse back and forth with the players when issues come up that heavily impact anyone's fun. Hear, yes, listen and agree......maybe, maybe not.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Talk to your Players.Talk to your DM. If more people used this advice, there would be 24.74% fewer threads on Tactics, Rules and DM discussions.
As several people here touched on, player expectations and their ideas of fun matter; I expect to finish the story as a family activity, with my first-ever DnD character (which I quickly became attached to), and losing him (especially without narrative significance like a heroic sacrifice) is not acceptable to me.
I'll be taking everyone's advice and talking things out with my SIL/DM, relaying my concerns, and looking for a way to get my character resurrected if not outright retconning from death to unconsciousness.
Thank you again!
I’m going to respectfully ask her to overrule her own prior declaration after I share where I’m coming from.
Any good DM worth their salt will listen to this. I have a group of new players and we're running Dragon Heist followed by Dungeon of the Mad Mage. Whenever I'm coming up to an encounter with an opportunity for a character to be instakilled, I always think of an 'out' for it. For example, they know a cleric in the temple of Selune, who knows True Resurrection. (They're going up against intellect devourers soon). Of course there will be a cost.... but the cost doesn't always have to be in gold..... you can think up your own creative ways to get a pc back and to encourage RP within the group...
As several people here touched on, player expectations and their ideas of fun matter; I expect to finish the story as a family activity, with my first-ever DnD character (which I quickly became attached to), and losing him (especially without narrative significance like a heroic sacrifice) is not acceptable to me.
I'll be taking everyone's advice and talking things out with my SIL/DM, relaying my concerns, and looking for a way to get my character resurrected if not outright retconning from death to unconsciousness.
Thank you again!
I’m going to respectfully ask her to overrule her own prior declaration after I share where I’m coming from.
Any good DM worth their salt will listen to this. I have a group of new players and we're running Dragon Heist followed by Dungeon of the Mad Mage. Whenever I'm coming up to an encounter with an opportunity for a character to be instakilled, I always think of an 'out' for it. For example, they know a cleric in the temple of Selune, who knows True Resurrection. (They're going up against intellect devourers soon). Of course there will be a cost.... but the cost doesn't always have to be in gold..... you can think up your own creative ways to get a pc back and to encourage RP within the group...
No, that is your opinion. I know many many good players who would never even consider asking a DM to reconsider anything.
It should be noted, any good DM is going to listen to their players’ concerns. That’s a pretty basic tenant of decent human interaction. Now, whether the DM changes their mind, that’s a different question—a good DM absolutely should listen to any concerns raised by their players, and then has the right to say “no, I won’t do that, and here is why.”
A good player is going to be willing to communicate with their DM about problems—that way the DM has more information that they can choose to apply to how they run their game. That good player needs to also respect that the DM might put different weight on different factors and might not rate the players’ concerns at the same degree of urgency as the player might. The good player also should be able to accept that, after the conversation, they might not get exactly what they want.
Mutual understanding, respect, and open communication is a critical part of any social interaction, D&D included.
As several people here touched on, player expectations and their ideas of fun matter; I expect to finish the story as a family activity, with my first-ever DnD character (which I quickly became attached to), and losing him (especially without narrative significance like a heroic sacrifice) is not acceptable to me.
I'll be taking everyone's advice and talking things out with my SIL/DM, relaying my concerns, and looking for a way to get my character resurrected if not outright retconning from death to unconsciousness.
Thank you again!
I’m going to respectfully ask her to overrule her own prior declaration after I share where I’m coming from.
Any good DM worth their salt will listen to this. I have a group of new players and we're running Dragon Heist followed by Dungeon of the Mad Mage. Whenever I'm coming up to an encounter with an opportunity for a character to be instakilled, I always think of an 'out' for it. For example, they know a cleric in the temple of Selune, who knows True Resurrection. (They're going up against intellect devourers soon). Of course there will be a cost.... but the cost doesn't always have to be in gold..... you can think up your own creative ways to get a pc back and to encourage RP within the group...
No, that is your opinion. I know many many good players who would never even consider asking a DM to reconsider anything.
It should be noted, any good DM is going to listen to their players’ concerns. That’s a pretty basic tenant of decent human interaction. Now, whether the DM changes their mind, that’s a different question—a good DM absolutely should listen to any concerns raised by their players, and then has the right to say “no, I won’t do that, and here is why.”
A good player is going to be willing to communicate with their DM about problems—that way the DM has more information that they can choose to apply to how they run their game. That good player needs to also respect that the DM might put different weight on different factors and might not rate the players’ concerns at the same degree of urgency as the player might. The good player also should be able to accept that, after the conversation, they might not get exactly what they want.
Mutual understanding, respect, and open communication is a critical part of any social interaction, D&D included.
As several people here touched on, player expectations and their ideas of fun matter; I expect to finish the story as a family activity, with my first-ever DnD character (which I quickly became attached to), and losing him (especially without narrative significance like a heroic sacrifice) is not acceptable to me.
I'll be taking everyone's advice and talking things out with my SIL/DM, relaying my concerns, and looking for a way to get my character resurrected if not outright retconning from death to unconsciousness.
Thank you again!
I’m going to respectfully ask her to overrule her own prior declaration after I share where I’m coming from.
Any good DM worth their salt will listen to this. I have a group of new players and we're running Dragon Heist followed by Dungeon of the Mad Mage. Whenever I'm coming up to an encounter with an opportunity for a character to be instakilled, I always think of an 'out' for it. For example, they know a cleric in the temple of Selune, who knows True Resurrection. (They're going up against intellect devourers soon). Of course there will be a cost.... but the cost doesn't always have to be in gold..... you can think up your own creative ways to get a pc back and to encourage RP within the group...
No, that is your opinion. I know many many good players who would never even consider asking a DM to reconsider anything.
It should be noted, any good DM is going to listen to their players’ concerns. That’s a pretty basic tenant of decent human interaction. Now, whether the DM changes their mind, that’s a different question—a good DM absolutely should listen to any concerns raised by their players, and then has the right to say “no, I won’t do that, and here is why.”
A good player is going to be willing to communicate with their DM about problems—that way the DM has more information that they can choose to apply to how they run their game. That good player needs to also respect that the DM might put different weight on different factors and might not rate the players’ concerns at the same degree of urgency as the player might. The good player also should be able to accept that, after the conversation, they might not get exactly what they want.
Mutual understanding, respect, and open communication is a critical part of any social interaction, D&D included.
Seems to me that this is part about mutual understanding and respect is a one way street. If a DM makes a ruling, you seem to think it is fine to disrespect the DM and ask them to reverse that ruling.
Let me put this as simply as possible for you:
1.A good DM will welcome and listen to their players’ concerns. That does not mean they will agree with those concerns or change their actions.
2. A good player will listen to their DMs judgments and accept them. To the extent they think the DM is missing information, they will provide that information in a respectful way and will respect the DM’s judgment made in light of the new information.
3. Not telling the DM how a player feels is far more disrespectful than sharing—that is the player saying “huh, I think this might change the outcome, but, rather than give them the information and allow the DM to make a choice, I will deny them agency and information they might want.”
4. Even if the outcome remains the same, this kind of dialogue helps the DM better understand their players, giving them information they can use moving forward. Thus the DM benefits greatly from the fact the player shared their thoughts, even when the DM answers “no, I’m not changing anything.”
5. All of that is a basic hallmark of human communication and obviously can be done in a mutually respectful manner.
Seems to me that this is part about mutual understanding and respect is a one way street. If a DM makes a ruling, you seem to think it is fine to disrespect the DM and ask them to reverse that ruling.
A concern cannot be voiced before an action is taken to raise the concern. This post seems to convey the message that any player who dares to give voice to their concerns is disrespecting the DM. I cannot imagine a DM mature enough for the chair who cannot handle having their players express concerns or wishes to them in a respectful manner. Do you find it personally disrespectful and offensive when anyone questions you, irrespective of the approach?
Personally, I see it as having fostered an environment of trust and respect when my players voice their concerns and they have. I don't know every rule and I sometimes get things wrong. I believe my games would suffer if my players felt they could not safely give voice to their concerns. It is healthy to be receptive to feedback and even disagreement from your players and I encourage you to give it a try.
Asking for the DM to reconsider is not disrespectful, Demanding that the DM reconsiders is is disrespectful.
Exactly. It's important that the players share what's upset them + what they want so the DM can better tailor the campaign to them and ensure no ones stuck at a table that accepts things in the game they hate and vice versa. Though at least attempting compromising before running out of the door and away from the table - or before just clicking "Leave Meeting" on the Zoom call or Discord group lol - in these hypothetical instances is good.
And I'm not talking about the specific situation posted on - which I might get to later - but I'm too tired and lazy and more frenzied for sleep right now than a piranha can be for blood. But, I find it respectful when my players voice concerns and might feel like it's actually a bit disrespectful at times if they do the opposite: I can't keep a game running if the players have countless worries in their head that don't escape the dungeon of their mouth. And it sucks if you think your friends in the group don't feel they can or want to talk to you - the Game Master - about issues in the campaign.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
BoringBard's long and tedious posts somehow manage to enrapture audiences. How? Because he used Charm Person, the #1 bard spell!
He/him pronouns. Call me Bard. PROUD NERD!
Ever wanted to talk about your parties' worst mistakes? Do so HERE. What's your favorite class, why? Share & explainHERE.
Only a DM since 1980 (3000+ Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA / Mixed, Bi, Trans, Woman / No longer welcome in the US, apparently
Wyrlde: Adventures in the Seven Cities .-=] Lore Book | Patreon | Wyrlde YT [=-. An original Setting for 5e, a whole solar system of adventure. Ongoing updates, exclusies, more. Not Talking About It / Dubbed The Oracle in the Cult of Mythology Nerds
Seems to me that this is part about mutual understanding and respect is a one way street. If a DM makes a ruling, you seem to think it is fine to disrespect the DM and ask them to reverse that ruling.
A concern cannot be voiced before an action is taken to raise the concern. This post seems to convey the message that any player who dares to give voice to their concerns is disrespecting the DM. I cannot imagine a DM mature enough for the chair who cannot handle having their players express concerns or wishes to them in a respectful manner. Do you find it personally disrespectful and offensive when anyone questions you, irrespective of the approach?
Personally, I see it as having fostered an environment of trust and respect when my players voice their concerns and they have. I don't know every rule and I sometimes get things wrong. I believe my games would suffer if my players felt they could not safely give voice to their concerns. It is healthy to be receptive to feedback and even disagreement from your players and I encourage you to give it a try.
A char died per the rules. The player is now asking the DM, who has made a ruling, to reverse that ruling. That is the definition of disrespect.
How is it disrespectful? You are making a pretty grave assumption about the poster in question who is actually reading this thread. I daresay your accusations are more disrespectful than asking a DM for help.
The compact that all players are to follow is that once a DM makes a ruling, that is the end of it. That has ALWAYS been the way. To ask a DM to retcon a death is very disrespectful.
Thankfully, it is not the way so much now. More and more DMs understand that this is a collaborative game, recognize their own fallible nature, and seek to ensure that everyone has fun at the table, including the players. We come from very different schools of thought, clearly, but I am going to ask that you stop insulting people in this thread, including but especially the OP, who is a new player to this game and is therefore vulnerable to being driven off from the game with your accusative comments.
Fair question. I will ask the other players to do whatever it takes to revive me.
This module seems to offer a route there, and I would be more than happy to buy it: https://www.dmsguild.com/m/product/417888
I would not be too hard on your DM--things like this happen, especially if the DM is relatively inexperienced and does not have a great idea of how to balance traps and encounters. Balancing is a DM skill that does not really come from a book, and which most premade modules also do poorly (either resulting in things being too easy or too deadly), so errors like this can happen. This is particularly true at the opening levels--characters do not have very many hitpoints, so, if you are not thinking critically as a DM, you might accidently end up dealing the "twice that character's total HP" necessary to cause instant death.
It sucks killing a player via some stupid mechanism like "oops, I balanced this trap poorly and instantly killed them." Your DM likely feels a bit dumb and a bit guilty about what happened, and that might manifest anywhere on the guilt spectrum from them trying to double down on their decision, rather than admit they are the ones truly at fault, to them being willing to work with you. Keep that in mind when you talk with your DM--you are probably not the only one upset here.
Personally, if I were in your shoes, I would accept the death for what it is--a death. The thing that makes D&D most fun is the consequences to your actions--even if those consequences are the result of bad DM decisions, they still happened in the game, and asking someone to retcon something (at least to me) goes against the vibe of D&D. But just because you can accept the death occurred does not mean death has to be the end. Instead of just asking my DM to let me come back, or trying to get the party to go on some quest to revive me, I would ask the DM if they could work on some way to bring me back... but with some consequences imposed. Bonus points if you work with your DM to come up with a mechanism for resurrection that enhances the story--perhaps the mechanism is something related to the dungeon you are in, and how it treats death; or perhaps the mechanism is related to some kind of magical energy related to the overall plot of the campaign.
For example, embrace your personal fear of the character dying--and make that part of your character. In their fear of death, perhaps they cut a bargain with a Death or Undead Domain deity and come back... but come back with some kind of flaw. Maybe their soul is not whole; maybe they are now in debt with this god, and your DM can use that as the basis for future story moments or to give you secret tasks. Perhaps that deity is someone antagonistic to the big bad guy for the campaign... or perhaps they are the big bad themselves (which you and your character might not even know when you strike the deal).
You could also consider changing your race over to the Reborn Lineage--this is a catch-all "I was once something else, but I came back from the dead" race that works perfectly for this situation. If you really want to commit, you could change your class, becoming a Warlock, Cleric, Paladin (or something else) reflecting whatever bargain you struck to come back from the dead.
Another thing to add, if you do not strike a deal with your DM, you should not be too stringent on asking your party to revive you. Especially at low-levels, that might not be an easy task--which means you will be playing a new character for some time. A new character you will be growing attached to and want to keep playing--and then you are just engineering a situation where the entire party spends effort to bring back your first character... but you might, by that point, decide you want to keep playing the character you have played for, by that point, a longer time period.
Similar to my advice not to double-check module mechanics, I'd encourage OP also not to seek out third-party (or even official) content with the express purpose of trying to persuade a DM to reverse a ruling. JustAFarmer has the right of it in that a DM ultimately decides what exists in a campaign - which includes what sources players can use. Heck, I myself ban a feat and racial trait that's in the Player's Handbook because it just doesn't suit my game or playstyle. Just because it exists doesn't obligate a DM to use it.
There's nothing wrong with talking to your DM and expressing your hopes. But I'd advise you not to turn this into your trying to manipulate her or the other players into you getting your way. Nobody enjoys being strong armed or guilt-tripped, and being a collaborative and respectful player helps the game continue to be fun for everyone. Moreso if you're playing with family. Real relationships come first, always.
For what it's worth, I have had a very similar experience as you. My level 4 fighter, at full health, died to a trap that the DM made far deadlier than was written. I deeply loved that character, and felt like I'd been cheated because I'd actually made my save and under normal circumstances would have just gone unconscious. The DM had his reasons, and at the time he thought that would make the story better. I rolled up a new character and the surviving party vowed to try to resurrect her someday - just like we vowed when our bard died to a mammoth at level 3. We thought it would be a quest for the campaign's epilogue or when my druid could cast a resurrection spell, but about 4 levels later, the DM approached me privately and said that he really regretted killing my fighter and asked if I'd like to bring her back. I completed that arc with my druid and ended up finishing the campaign as my resurrected fighter - battling against the corrupted undead version of our beloved bard the BBEG summoned. We restored the bard in the epilogue.
Character death sucks, and there are ways (if your DM allows it) for it not to be permanent. Sometimes it can happen in the normal course of the game. Sometimes it can be a special quest. Sometimes it is part of the "happily ever after" epilogue. And sometimes it doesn't happen at all. My encouragement is to be open to the ways death might be used to tell a really satisfying and unexpected story.
How much death there is at a table is often about an individual DM’s style.
Your DM hasn’t done anything “wrong” but if you want to bring your character back and she doesn’t then the two of you might just prefer different styles of D&D.
Personally I favor roleplay-oriented groups, which tend to be low-death. Some people would find that kind of table boring, other people love them. There’s not a “wrong answer” and a “right answer” here, just different ways to play.
When I’m the DM, characters can die, but only when it makes sense and doesn’t ruin somebody’s fun. If you knowingly take a major risk, or if you go out in a blaze of glory doing something heroic, you can die. If you’re someone who prefers the possibility of character death, you can die. But I’m not going to say “the dice decide and that’s that” if unexpected circumstances would kill a character in a way that’s no fun for a player.
In time you’ll be able to find tables that suit your style of play - there are plenty of no-death and low-death tables if that’s what's most fun for you.
Just don’t expect a DM to change their style to suit yours. You can ask your DM about bringing your character back, and the fact that she ended the session right after the death may mean there’s some hope (ending a session is sometimes a DM’s way of buying time to figure out what to do about something). But if she says no, respect that, don’t keep trying to change her mind. It’s up to her how she runs her table, and it’s up to you whether you want to play at that table or find a different one.
I would recommend not doing this. You will almost certainly be imposing a burden on the other players, who will not appreciate being ripped out of an ongoing quest to find ressurection magic (typically unavailable at early levels) for a low-level character.
I empathize with you, I really do. But you want to make sure that you're safeguarding the fun of everybody at the table.
Sweeping generalization that proves absurdly uninformed when only one example can be found that says otherwise. Conveniently, I am such an example. I rank RP at the top as evidence in AED's thread on death and I also understand that death happens sometimes and can roll with 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
No, you are attempting to use the preferences of a single user to confirm your bias. Let's say you are correct though and everyone who prioritizes RP, including myself, cannot abide character deaths. What is your point?
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
Those of us more inclined to RP than combat are not universally against character deaths. I will grant, a LOT of our collective has a very hard time with them, but not all of us are entirely against them. I think I speak for the largest portion of the RP heavy side (possibly even all) in saying we, from EITHER side of the table, are strongly against pointless character deaths. To most of us, traps are supposed to give you a solid whack in the snoot, or a big inconvenience in your progress. They are rarely, if ever, intended to take a party member completely out.
A simile might be you go to swat your friend's cap off his head, but swing too close, and end up breaking his nose. You didn't want to actually mess him up, and if you were "god" you'd have guaranteed yourself to NOT break his nose.
I sill agree, the RP heavy side of D&D groups do usually have a pretty hard time on character death. Often we'll look for ways to reverse it (seeking someone to cast the magic or similar) or appeal to a DM for maybe a non-complete death solution/scenario. In any case, it does boil down to the DM. While I feel a DM is obligated to hear out a player who is feeling defeated or picked on, or "cheated" (not by breaking rules just from a REALLY crappy deal) I also know that the DM is within their right to stand on the ruling made at the time with no changes if they see fit. DM has absolute authority, but to me, also a responsibility to converse back and forth with the players when issues come up that heavily impact anyone's fun. Hear, yes, listen and agree......maybe, maybe not.
Talk to your Players. Talk to your DM. If more people used this advice, there would be 24.74% fewer threads on Tactics, Rules and DM discussions.
Any good DM worth their salt will listen to this. I have a group of new players and we're running Dragon Heist followed by Dungeon of the Mad Mage. Whenever I'm coming up to an encounter with an opportunity for a character to be instakilled, I always think of an 'out' for it. For example, they know a cleric in the temple of Selune, who knows True Resurrection. (They're going up against intellect devourers soon). Of course there will be a cost.... but the cost doesn't always have to be in gold..... you can think up your own creative ways to get a pc back and to encourage RP within the group...
It should be noted, any good DM is going to listen to their players’ concerns. That’s a pretty basic tenant of decent human interaction. Now, whether the DM changes their mind, that’s a different question—a good DM absolutely should listen to any concerns raised by their players, and then has the right to say “no, I won’t do that, and here is why.”
A good player is going to be willing to communicate with their DM about problems—that way the DM has more information that they can choose to apply to how they run their game. That good player needs to also respect that the DM might put different weight on different factors and might not rate the players’ concerns at the same degree of urgency as the player might. The good player also should be able to accept that, after the conversation, they might not get exactly what they want.
Mutual understanding, respect, and open communication is a critical part of any social interaction, D&D included.
Exactly!
Let me put this as simply as possible for you:
1.A good DM will welcome and listen to their players’ concerns. That does not mean they will agree with those concerns or change their actions.
2. A good player will listen to their DMs judgments and accept them. To the extent they think the DM is missing information, they will provide that information in a respectful way and will respect the DM’s judgment made in light of the new information.
3. Not telling the DM how a player feels is far more disrespectful than sharing—that is the player saying “huh, I think this might change the outcome, but, rather than give them the information and allow the DM to make a choice, I will deny them agency and information they might want.”
4. Even if the outcome remains the same, this kind of dialogue helps the DM better understand their players, giving them information they can use moving forward. Thus the DM benefits greatly from the fact the player shared their thoughts, even when the DM answers “no, I’m not changing anything.”
5. All of that is a basic hallmark of human communication and obviously can be done in a mutually respectful manner.
A concern cannot be voiced before an action is taken to raise the concern. This post seems to convey the message that any player who dares to give voice to their concerns is disrespecting the DM. I cannot imagine a DM mature enough for the chair who cannot handle having their players express concerns or wishes to them in a respectful manner. Do you find it personally disrespectful and offensive when anyone questions you, irrespective of the approach?
Personally, I see it as having fostered an environment of trust and respect when my players voice their concerns and they have. I don't know every rule and I sometimes get things wrong. I believe my games would suffer if my players felt they could not safely give voice to their concerns. It is healthy to be receptive to feedback and even disagreement from your players and I encourage you to give it a try.
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
Asking for the DM to reconsider is not disrespectful, Demanding that the DM reconsiders is is disrespectful.
Exactly. It's important that the players share what's upset them + what they want so the DM can better tailor the campaign to them and ensure no ones stuck at a table that accepts things in the game they hate and vice versa. Though at least attempting compromising before running out of the door and away from the table - or before just clicking "Leave Meeting" on the Zoom call or Discord group lol - in these hypothetical instances is good.
And I'm not talking about the specific situation posted on - which I might get to later - but I'm too tired and lazy and more frenzied for sleep right now than a piranha can be for blood. But, I find it respectful when my players voice concerns and might feel like it's actually a bit disrespectful at times if they do the opposite: I can't keep a game running if the players have countless worries in their head that don't escape the dungeon of their mouth. And it sucks if you think your friends in the group don't feel they can or want to talk to you - the Game Master - about issues in the campaign.
BoringBard's long and tedious posts somehow manage to enrapture audiences. How? Because he used Charm Person, the #1 bard spell!
He/him pronouns. Call me Bard. PROUD NERD!
Ever wanted to talk about your parties' worst mistakes? Do so HERE. What's your favorite class, why? Share & explain
HERE.The above is incorrect.
Only a DM since 1980 (3000+ Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA / Mixed, Bi, Trans, Woman / No longer welcome in the US, apparently
Wyrlde: Adventures in the Seven Cities
.-=] Lore Book | Patreon | Wyrlde YT [=-.
An original Setting for 5e, a whole solar system of adventure. Ongoing updates, exclusies, more.
Not Talking About It / Dubbed The Oracle in the Cult of Mythology Nerds
How is it disrespectful? You are making a pretty grave assumption about the poster in question who is actually reading this thread. I daresay your accusations are more disrespectful than asking a DM for help.
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
Thankfully, it is not the way so much now. More and more DMs understand that this is a collaborative game, recognize their own fallible nature, and seek to ensure that everyone has fun at the table, including the players. We come from very different schools of thought, clearly, but I am going to ask that you stop insulting people in this thread, including but especially the OP, who is a new player to this game and is therefore vulnerable to being driven off from the game with your accusative comments.
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