On a facebook group I recently noticed someone who'd come up with a novel trap idea that would effectively block a PCs ability to level up until they'd dealt with the curse in question. This sent me on a thought path. We see so often on these forums and other forums people bemoaning player characters who do some serious out of the box thinking and take random actions. Often, having come from other TTRPGs and having played D&D for almost two decades at this point I feel like we as a community of D&D players and GMs have someone minimised the idea of consequences having actions. Even now and these days I feel hesitant pulling the trigger on having enemy NPCs or monsters killing a PC. In the heat of the moment I sometimes divert from what I was going to do and instead have the NPCs offer a bargin, or require something to be done by the player characters in order to spare their lives. Trying to nail this down, I sort of feel like the more I've become part of the various online D&D communities I've been discouraged from inflicting serious consequences to player character actions. There seems often to be a narrative that player character death, or even serious consequences for player character actions should be avoided because the players in question might just take their ball and go home.
Thinking about board games I've often had more fun losing at Pandemic or Forbidden Island than I've had winning. The whole group is united and desperate to win despite the overwhelming odds. It pushes you as players to communicate more and to really consider your actions and their potential effects. The designers of these games did something amazing in making these types of games fun to lose! The same sort of applies to video games. Poor Alex Kidd died more times than is funny, but it always pushed me to keep going. Games like Darkest Dungeon and FTL bring something really interesting to the rogue-like/lite and permadeath genres. In XCOM I've become irrationally attached to these characters and still had them die on me making for a major, and sometimes game losing consequence.
Yet, time after time I see players of D&D act as if there isn't the possibility to begin playing a new character or even just writing out an existing character in order to keep playing. The various communities all seem to be very against the idea of consequences affecting player characters and I wonder if that isn't a narrative that we need to change?
I experienced the worst result of this kind of narrative at a table where I was playing rather than GMing (my usual role) where a player outright got up, walked away from the game and the table because their character had been arrested and had their hands chopped off without trial effectively nullifying that character who was now destined to rot in jail. Now I'll grant you that's an extreme consequence, but given that the PC first tried to unsuccessfully pickpocket an NPC, then when caught decided to kill said NPC which was then witnessed by bystanders which in turn drew the attention of town guards.
To me this chain of events seemed reasonable. Yeah, this brand new to town adventurer did something utterly despicable. Of course there are going to be consequences. The GM in question even gave the player an extra freebie warning of 'you're not trying to be sneaky here? There are people on the streets, are you sure you want to attack the NPC? This might attract the wrong sort of attention!' Player in question quite clearly had the chain of thoughts that the NPC had a key they wanted and they were determined to get it. Still said player just threw a fit over their character being eliminated, they were full of moaning that the GM wasn't 'playing the game properly' and was 'clearly new to all this', 'you'll never be able to run a campaign if you do this kind of stuff'.
Now, I hate to stereotype here, but I know the player in question watches a lot of D&D streamed games. I won't lie, I've always felt like most of them are like watching paint dry compared to actually playing. About the only one that I really enjoy was Oxventure but even then there are videos of the GM there stating they'd never kill off one of the Oxventurers (short of a request from a player) because it's an entertainment show and audiences love the characters. Even if we look at Critical Role, the very heavily orchestrated and produced way in which Travis Willingham's Campaign 3 first character was written out kind of reveals one of the major weaknesses about these streamed D&D games. They're being treated so much more like the TV shows that they really are than a game of D&D. This makes me wonder if maybe all the streams around are part of the reason for the avoidance of consequences of PC actions?
So, I guess what I'm curious to hear is what are other GM/DM perspectives on this? Have you seen players react more negatively in the last decade to consequences for their characters? Are consequences something we (or maybe even WotC) should highlight more? Are we letting players get too attached to their characters? Do you ensure that there are consequences for Player Character actions in your games? How severe do you make those consequences?
I think it's important to distinguish between player action and active player choice. Sometimes players are in a situation where the DM lays three options in front of them and says "you may A, B, or C", and one of those options is The Bad One, and the players might not have a way of knowing which one that is. So, they act as their characters would (in an actual roleplay way, not in a murder-hobo way) and they, by chance discover that B was The Bad One. As the DM, I would not put death on the table for them in this instance where the player choice was passive, based on a scenario I contrived, even if the players acted rashly in its execution (maybe they taunted the bad guy and it got too personal, now the bad guy is insecure about their large ears, still no, I'm not killing any players on purpose).
Compare that to if I, as the DM, instead of saying "pick A, B, or C", instead I said "Here's the situation, here's what you know, here's what you can do to learn more, come up with a plan." Now it is on the players to actively choose how to proceed. They have access to information and the means to gather intel on the mission. They can figure out what they're facing and how best to counter it. IF they have those opportunities and they do not use them, and actively choose to go in unprepared, or prepare under an incorrect assumption, or otherwise choose a course of action that means the situation goes south for them, then I'm OK with player death being on the table (as long as during session 0 you discussed with the players that this is a campaign where death can happen if you underprepare and the players were cool with it).
The difference is that players aren't often in the position to make real, active choice. Often they're presented with options by the DM, and therfore it's easier to feel set up as a player if you take what the DM gave you and get killed off for it.
The issue is that the second instance, where the players have access to all this intel and the situation is difficult and intricate enough to not only require, but also reward good planning in a satisfactory way, is really really difficult to plan out, and requires an internal consistency to your game world that is just very hard for the average DM to do justice. So instead we just try to plan out enough passive choices to present our players in enough places to seem intricate and internally consistent, but most of what we do is present options. Hell, I do it, I'm often at a loss between judging if an encounter is hard enough to be satisfying or hard enough to accidentally TPK my people, and a TPK that's my fault and not theirs is no fun for anyone involved.
Basically I think the reason player death is so rare is that the situations in which it is justified are really hard to bring about, and in this day and age we've mostly come to the conclusion that an unjustified player death just kind of ruins people's enjoyment most of the time.
This all sounds like a session 0 conversation. Decide what works for your table, with your table, and stick to it. I’d be generally hesitant to normalize most things, that implies the is a normal, or right, way to play.
So, I'd disagree with your assessment of the situation. The session zero for this short run game was very clear that consequences to character actions could be expected. The DM clearly highlighted that the course of action was going to negatively impact the character in question. The player chose to ignore these warnings. They actively made the choice that no, they weren't going to do the trifling fetch quest for the NPC, they were going to get the mcguffin in the fastest way possible.
To my mind that's kind of like deciding to play fortnite or such without picking up any weapons. You can certainly do it, but it's pretty obvious that making that choice will have negative consequences.
I fear I disagree with your entire premise here, it feels like it shunts too little responsibility onto the players and their choices. Take something like Blades in the Dark, I reference that game frequently because it is a very harsh, very difficult TTRPG. Every action of a player character has consequences and they are, mostly going to make things more difficult. I've never yet witnessed a player in those games moan and throw fits like D&D players. Ditto for any one of the dozens of other TTRPGs I've played over the years. It seems to be a uniquely D&D problem where we seem to feel the need to justify player character death.
As a writer, a character death is an essential tool in any type of writing. My particular experience does happen to be novels and stageplays, but I have also written a screenplay or two in my time. Take something like Buffy the Vampire Slayer for example. The writing out of characters was an essential tool in pushing other character arcs and developing the story further. As a writer you don't justify character death, you just kill off the character.
Now, if we apply such to the TTRPG collaborative process (which arguably shouldn't be too dissimilar to the writers' room of a TV show), by forcing the group to have to come up with this nebulous idea of a 'justification' for character death, you deny a tool in the toolkit for the players to utilise. Likewise, any consequence short of death. What happens if a PC is caught stealing? Should they suffer no consequences at all? What if the known penalty for theft was the removal of a hand? The PCs know this, yet still they decide they're going to try it out anyway. Should we really walk back established lore in favour of plot armour for our PCs?
Personally, I've found that this has even stretched to feeling guilty for having players lose their items. Recently someone stepped into an anti-magic field and lost their bag of holding and everything within it. But if it's been highlighted that magic isn't penetrating this area around someone/something (which it was highlighted) and the PC makes the decision to step into the field then great. Their decision has a weight to it.
Let's say a PC decides to step keep grappling the bad guy to ensure they do in fact get banished or sent through a magic portal of some kind. That PC knows, or should know, that a potential consequence to their action is that their action may mean they'll end up wherever the bad guy is being sent. That they chose to take the action anyway has weight when paired with consequences.
And for the record, players...at least at my tables do have a free choice. Entirely free. I make that clear. It's rare but I have had parties entirely ignore the prepared material. In such cases it'll mean hastily drawn battlemaps (if not reverting to theatre of the mind), but it's into the realm of improv...a skill which all GMs should have or at least be prepared to develop.
To be more detailed here though, it's not about the whole character death thing. I mean, Character death should in my opinion always be on the table, or else why does anything the PCs do matter? You've taken the biggest potential risk away from those PCs. That strikes wrong to me. If a teacher steps between a gun and a child that teacher is displaying immense bravery, courage, and ultimately pastoral care. If Superman steps in front of that same gun, he's risking absolutely nothing. It is literally nothing for him to do that and is a big reason why he's such a dreadfully dull character. For that teacher however, it is everything. They are risking everything they have, and even risking those around them experiencing loss by taking that action. Understanding that connection, understanding that human beings are willing to do incredible things in the name of what is right, cuts to the core of our humanity. It's why so much of what our fiction and human culture fixates on is death and extreme circumstances. I honestly believe that if we allow player characters to have outcomes not including death they become superman. They are risking absolutely nothing. If we're not willing to remove their items, have the PCs locked away, injured, or any other consequence, we rob them of the motivation to do anything. If there is no risk, there's no point to what they are doing. At all. I think that cuts to just why it is that I feel a need to buck away from this trend of minimising consequences in D&D. Because currently, in some of the games I GM, it's all sort of pointless.
That's not to say I'm going to kill off the PCs willy nilly. Nor am I going to go about seeking to have PC equipment stolen. I do think it's a conversation that bears weight and that we should all be having around TTRPGs. Risk and consequence are what make unique acts of random kindness so much more meaningful both in our fictions but in the real world.
This all sounds like a session 0 conversation. Decide what works for your table, with your table, and stick to it. I’d be generally hesitant to normalize most things, that implies the is a normal, or right, way to play.
The point was to try and open a discussion not in the specific but in the abstract. Of course you are correct, we do need to discuss these things with our players in session zero. However, I have begun to notice more and more a trend of D&D attracting players who are not happy to see any consequence to their PC actions. A problem which doesn't seem as prevalent in other TTRPGs.
This all sounds like a session 0 conversation. Decide what works for your table, with your table, and stick to it. I’d be generally hesitant to normalize most things, that implies the is a normal, or right, way to play.
The point was to try and open a discussion not in the specific but in the abstract. Of course you are correct, we do need to discuss these things with our players in session zero. However, I have begun to notice more and more a trend of D&D attracting players who are not happy to see any consequence to their PC actions. A problem which doesn't seem as prevalent in other TTRPGs.
Well, why is it a problem? It may not be how I’d prefer to play, but if I’m not at that table, why should I care how other people have fun. And if I am at that table, it’s something we’d all discover in session 0. Either we’d sort it out and find a compromise that works for everyone, or someone would realize that table’s game isn’t for them and politely leave. I mean, ideally they’d be polite, there’s a lot of jackasses out there, but there’s not much to be done about that
The idea that it is a problem to be solved implies there is only one correct way to play, and people who do it differently are wrong and need to be educated about that one correct way.
I’d rather have a game that attracts all kinds of players. More people playing means more people buying books means a more robust hobby for everyone.
As a writer you don't justify character death, you just kill off the character.
As a writer myself, I disagree with this philosophy. That's how you end up with Game of Thrones just tossing aside 3 seasons' worth of character investment for a quick cash in on shock value until nobody cares how the show ends anymore.
Even with the Buffy example, I think the most memorable character deaths aren't the ones where the writers went "welp,
Tara
needs to die here, random bang!" The most memorable deaths are the ones where the show has a way of telegraphing that its coming, and you feel the tension of "will they actually...? Are they gonna find some way out...?". I think it's the season 2 or 3 finale when you have Angellus opening the portal to suck the world into a hell dimension, and you have Willow trying to restore his soul, Buffy doesn't know it, she's fighting him she thinks to the death-- killing him is the only way to stop the portal-- and the whole time you watch your like "nooo just stall him and willow will do the thing!" And she does, but a moment too late. Angel is back, but the portal is open, and Buffy only has a moment to recognize he's back before she has to kill him anyways.
In the heroic adventure genre, of the save-the-world variety where the stakes are big and the characters are drive the narrative (like a show like Buffy, or the style that most modern DnD games mimic), that's a really good character death. It had layers, tension, setup-- maybe my use of the word "justification" was too vague a way to say it, but what I mean was the death was *earned.* Not just earned by the character, but earned by the narrative, within the context of the genre, it wasn't a cheap death that existed just for shock value (like much of the wasted potential on Game of Thrones). A good player death should be earned not just by the player but by the DM. You should come away from it thinking "yeah, I may not like it, but that's definitely how that happens."
The big difference is that the high-lethality games of the 70's and 80's weren't Buffy, they weren't the same genre. They largely weren't 'save the world' narratives and they weren't driven by the sheer force of the interesting personalities of the player characters, the stakes were lower, often more about gathering riches for the player's own personal reasons, and the characters were reactive to the world, and it was more a PvE episodic challenge like the shorter pulp novels that generation of gamers grew up with. I think the difference is that while life can be cheap in that kind of game because your fourth character this campaign didn't tap the right cobble with their 10-ft pole and got dissolved, doesn't feel like a hero, they're an extension of you you use to explore the game that grows more of a personality the longer they make it. That's just not the way most people play anymore, and character death becoming rarer I don't think is necessarily something to kick back against.
Expecting a generation of gamers who grew up on Buffy to play a game as imagined by a generation that grew up on pulp fantasy in the same way doesn't add up. Of course people inspired into the hobby by different things want to play differently. Character-driven narrative structure is just more the trend nowadays and the way the game is played has adjusted to reflect it.
This all sounds like a session 0 conversation. Decide what works for your table, with your table, and stick to it. I’d be generally hesitant to normalize most things, that implies the is a normal, or right, way to play.
The point was to try and open a discussion not in the specific but in the abstract. Of course you are correct, we do need to discuss these things with our players in session zero. However, I have begun to notice more and more a trend of D&D attracting players who are not happy to see any consequence to their PC actions. A problem which doesn't seem as prevalent in other TTRPGs.
I agree with Xalthu in that I don't view it as a problem in the abstract any more than I view hack'n'slash as a problem in the abstract. Neither of them happen to be my preferred way of playing D&D, and nothing forces me to experience games run like that. So in the abstract, there is no problem. It's just not what I consider enjoyable.
Now, if I find myself at a table that won't let me roleplay, or if my new player objects to the possibility that I might kill his level 1 fighter...yes, now it's a problem because there is a mismatch of gaming values or, at minimum, unclear expectations that involve me specifically. And while there are some trends in D&D that I'm not a fan of, they are easy enough to avoid until they affect me specifically. Things trending in a direction I don't like might be annoying, but the beauty of this hobby is that absolutely nothing matters except what is agreed upon at each individual table, and if I find a table that shares my gaming preferences, all that annoyance becomes background noise.
So here's where I'm at - If you and your players are having fun, nothing else matters.
It doesn't matter what I'm doing at my table. It doesn't matter what Matt Mercer is doing at his table. It doesn't matter what Gygax would have wanted and if he's doing spirals in his grave.
If you and your players are having fun, then you are doing it right. Any effort to "normalize" anything but that is just chatter.
I find the use of the Buffy example as interesting because frankly I think the random deaths that Whedon loves to include in his writing does the opposite for me. It doesn't invest me in the narrative it pushes me out. In another movie he wrote and produced, when a particular character was just boom, reaped out of being alive I was ready to leave the theater. Not out of anger but just out of disinterest. I didn't pay $20 for a ticket to be depressed 2 hours later. I didn't get a babysitter so I could be reminded that the world sucks. Heck open today's news for another reminder of that.
So for me, games like DND are escapist story telling. I don't mind if my players are seeing them as more about compelling narrative and roleplay rather than harsh tactical engagements. I like that people invest, that they get art done for their characters. That they write long backstories. That they meet up on discord to hash out little 'in jokes'. I find a lot more value in this.
I've also learned that "Whelp, your character is dead!" is a generally unfun way to play the game. I understand how as the DM you might find yourself thinking "what did they expect? Didn't they hear me tell them that this was going to go badly?" And what I've finally figured out is that instead of a summary execution, you stop the game, you look at your players and you say "well... lookit.. is this what you want?" and "this isn't something I'm okay with at this table so we need to hash this out" and maybe even as the DM "I'm confused as to what you all see happening here because it SEEMS that A is a very logical consequence and I don't see pathways to B and C." The hand cutting is a great example. Before the player's character is effectively executed and the player tossed out of the game, you stop and you talk about what's about to happen and why you feel it should. And then you ASK the players what it is they see happening. And if you can't come to agreement then you don't have to torture anyone by making them stay at a table they're not having fun at-- You included!
Overall. Have fun. Play with people who are fun. And communicate with the people to maximize fun.
I'm always of the opinion that actions should have consequences. If you don't want a character to die, maybe they shouldn't be an adventurer. It's a tough job.
The threat of death adds meaning to the game. If there's no real threat of death without the DM asking you 7 times "are you sure you want to do this? I'm gonna kill ya if ya do," then the HP and death saving throws and really the whole game is just an illusion. It's just becomes a way of making people think that death is an option, when really it isn't. It might work for a little while, running off of the falsified idea that actions can have consequences, but eventually logic catches up and people start to realize "nothing I do can have any negative effect, so why does it matter?" If the game only has the illusion of stakes instead of an actual threat, then people will start to notice, and eventually they'll stop caring.
In a way, it's a Roadrunner problem. You run (which represents having fun) for a while on the open road (which represents a game with stakes). If the road runs out and it's just open air (a lack of stakes), you might not notice for a while. You keep running because of the illusion that you're still on the freeway, because of the illusion that actions can have consequences. Eventually, of course, you look down. Then you stop running, and you start falling. It's inevitably unsustainable; everybody looks down sooner or later.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Look at what you've done. You spoiled it. You have nobody to blame but yourself. Go sit and think about your actions.
Don't be mean. Rudeness is a vicious cycle, and it has to stop somewhere. Exceptions for things that are funny. Go to the current Competition of the Finest 'Brews! It's a cool place where cool people make cool things.
How I'm posting based on text formatting: Mod Hat Off - Mod Hat Also Off (I'm not a mod)
I don't think that we as a movement need to normalize player consequences, it depends on your group and what you want to run as a DM. I like to run a consequential game, if you do something stupid, then you will pay the price. This makes a lot of sense to me and frees up a lot of my time as a DM. For example, I tell my players that I am running a Good focused campaign and that I am writing encounters with that in mind. They are free to do things that are outside of that, but there are consequences. They can run with this, but if they choose to be evil then they have to deal with it and if they do it well, then their character will eventually diverge from the party to an extent that I will take it over, write it into the campaign as a serious enemy and use it as a true threat; with inside knowledge of the party. At this point they get to roll up a new character. I don't have the time or patience to run what is effectively a side campaign because someone wants to diverge. They can if they want, but there is a price and I will make it as interesting and as fun as I can and I think that it can be really rewarding, even if the character meets an untimely end.
This sort of play isn't for everyone, but it really inspires me as a DM and sets up a precedent for my players for what to expect. We are all busy and only get so much time to write up adventures and we have to limit the scope of choices to some degree. The way I am running it frees up my players to make very consequential choices, that may get them killed or lose their characters, but it is engaging (in our experience).
The threat of death adds meaning to the game. If there's no real threat of death without the DM asking you 7 times "are you sure you want to do this? I'm gonna kill ya if ya do," then the HP and death saving throws and really the whole game is just an illusion. It's just becomes a way of making people think that death is an option, when really it isn't. It might work for a little while, running off of the falsified idea that actions can have consequences, but eventually logic catches up and people start to realize "nothing I do can have any negative effect, so why does it matter?" If the game only has the illusion of stakes instead of an actual threat, then people will start to notice, and eventually they'll stop caring.
But this assumes that the only thing that really matters is the death of the character. Is that the real stakes? And how far do we want people to go to minimize those stakes?
Like, let's assume you've got someone who is really invested in your game. They've spent $300 out of pocket on two custom mini's, a set of custom dice, and then commissioned two bits of artwork to show their character. Do you think that a) character death/ game removal is on their radar? and b) death is the only thing they want to avoid?
Failure can take a lot of forms and players will always try to avoid it. Death is just one of them and I think the least interesting. There are lots of other things that can happen that can create a sense of stakes without it being death. Losing face to a noble, having a romantic interest show dislike or dismissal, having a god turn away from a cleric. These are all things that are not death but can a) impact a character and b) create a sense of loss. They're all things that the players will actively work to avoid.
On the other hand, if your only tool in the box is the hammer of character death, you are much less likely to see that kind of investment at the table. I won't get commissioned work for my OC if I think that next week a few 1's on a random die means I need to make a new character. And having played back in the "don't worry if I die, I've got a new character ready to go", I really don't want to go back there.
If you don't want your character to die, then you should play your character as somebody who doesn't want to die.
HP getting low, back away from the fight, and find an exist strategy from that immediate location.
Without the real fear of death, the entire "adventuring" career is a lot less dangerous.
I fully agree with the DM in the OP scenario where they warned the player about their character's actions, and the player decided to go through with it. So I feel no sorrow for that player at all.
The threat of death adds meaning to the game. If there's no real threat of death without the DM asking you 7 times "are you sure you want to do this? I'm gonna kill ya if ya do," then the HP and death saving throws and really the whole game is just an illusion. It's just becomes a way of making people think that death is an option, when really it isn't. It might work for a little while, running off of the falsified idea that actions can have consequences, but eventually logic catches up and people start to realize "nothing I do can have any negative effect, so why does it matter?" If the game only has the illusion of stakes instead of an actual threat, then people will start to notice, and eventually they'll stop caring.
But this assumes that the only thing that really matters is the death of the character. Is that the real stakes? And how far do we want people to go to minimize those stakes?
Like, let's assume you've got someone who is really invested in your game. They've spent $300 out of pocket on two custom mini's, a set of custom dice, and then commissioned two bits of artwork to show their character. Do you think that a) character death/ game removal is on their radar? and b) death is the only thing they want to avoid?
Failure can take a lot of forms and players will always try to avoid it. Death is just one of them and I think the least interesting. There are lots of other things that can happen that can create a sense of stakes without it being death. Losing face to a noble, having a romantic interest show dislike or dismissal, having a god turn away from a cleric. These are all things that are not death but can a) impact a character and b) create a sense of loss. They're all things that the players will actively work to avoid.
On the other hand, if your only tool in the box is the hammer of character death, you are much less likely to see that kind of investment at the table. I won't get commissioned work for my OC if I think that next week a few 1's on a random die means I need to make a new character. And having played back in the "don't worry if I die, I've got a new character ready to go", I really don't want to go back there.
This seems like a lot and to much to ask of most DM's. Spending money on something imaginary is one thing, but expecting that to influence the game in any way is quite another, and frankly seems a bit crazy. If they are that serious about their character, then they will put some real thought into playing it. These characters are only an investment of imagination, anything beyond that superfluous.
Sure, death isn't the only threat to a party. But when you're delving through dungeons, avoiding traps, and fighting monsters, it's usually the main one. Like I said, the HP and death saving throw systems are there for a reason. If you just ignore the threat of death, they become mere illusions.
I don't think that, assuming they knew going into the campaign that actions can have consequences, they should be able to spend $300 and then get plot armor. They knew that their character could die when they spent all that money, and they accepted that. I don't think that killing the character makes all that useless, and I certainly don't think that they have a right to be shocked when something they knew could happen happens.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Look at what you've done. You spoiled it. You have nobody to blame but yourself. Go sit and think about your actions.
Don't be mean. Rudeness is a vicious cycle, and it has to stop somewhere. Exceptions for things that are funny. Go to the current Competition of the Finest 'Brews! It's a cool place where cool people make cool things.
How I'm posting based on text formatting: Mod Hat Off - Mod Hat Also Off (I'm not a mod)
So, I guess what I'm curious to hear is what are other GM/DM perspectives on this? Have you seen players react more negatively in the last decade to consequences for their characters? Are consequences something we (or maybe even WotC) should highlight more? Are we letting players get too attached to their characters? Do you ensure that there are consequences for Player Character actions in your games? How severe do you make those consequences?
1)Have some players become big babies, maybe, or have they always been there and with social media, and more online things we are just more aware of them? Its hard to say. people who act like that don't get invited back to my table.
2) Yes we should all highlight that there are real in-game consequences to the choices your characters makes in game. This is something I always cover in session 0. I let my players know that I am not the enemy, I am not out to get them, or trying to beat them, but if they make foolish decisions in-game the dice will decide their fate. I always use the example that if their party decides to go looking for an ancient dragon at level 5, they may find one, and they will almost certainty all die. I also make sure they know that there is a "legal system" in this imaginary world, so things like theft and murder have consequences if they get caught.
3) It is hard to say if a player can get to attached to their PC. I want my players to care about their PCs, I want them to be invested. 5e (RAW)is just not as gritty as previous versions of the game, where it seemed like PC death was more of a norm. There is probably good and bad with this. Personally I like the long term character stories that kind of start to auto generate them selves over the course of a long campaign with the same PCs. but PC death can do the same thing for the rest of the party.
4) I always have consequences for the choices PCs make, That's the best way to make the world feel real. The severity depends on the actions the PC took to get themselves into the situation. I always try to have the consequences be something that the PC can potentially avoid or get out of with good/really good roles, and I always let things play out. For example in the scenario where the PC ultimately had their hands cut off and they were left in prison to rot, I would never just say "you've been arrested and your hands have been cut off" I would set it up in such a way that they had choices, flea? fight with the town watch, ect. Give the rest of the party time to see if they want to rescue the arrested PC or leave them to their consequences. In a situation like above where a PC murdered a NPC even if they did escape the town guard and flea, they would have a bounty placed on their head and eventually more and more bounty hunters, town watches, kings guards, ect would come looking for them. But is some cases there is no way out, like in the example I give my players in session 0, if you decide to wander into a ancient red dragons lair at 5 level and try to steal something from its hoard......there is about 100% chance the dice are going to kill you without any help from me.
Personally, I've found that this has even stretched to feeling guilty for having players lose their items. Recently someone stepped into an anti-magic field and lost their bag of holding and everything within it. But if it's been highlighted that magic isn't penetrating this area around someone/something (which it was highlighted) and the PC makes the decision to step into the field then great. Their decision has a weight to it. .
Unless the players and the PCs known exactly what will happen that is rather harsh. RAW In an anti magic field magic items become mundane while in the sphere so a bag of holding would be a normal bag you that you could not get your stuff out of until leaving 5he anti magic area.
Going back to the OP I think it is more a murder hobo problem than PC death issue. At session 0 it should be discussed whether being unlucky or careless should result in PC deaths but unless it is an evil PC campaign most of the party would not want to be associated with a character who kills people just for noticing they are being pickpocketed.
Personally, I've found that this has even stretched to feeling guilty for having players lose their items. Recently someone stepped into an anti-magic field and lost their bag of holding and everything within it. But if it's been highlighted that magic isn't penetrating this area around someone/something (which it was highlighted) and the PC makes the decision to step into the field then great. Their decision has a weight to it. .
Unless the players and the PCs known exactly what will happen that is rather harsh. RAW In an anti magic field magic items become mundane while in the sphere so a bag of holding would be a normal bag you that you could not get your stuff out of until leaving 5he anti magic area.
Going back to the OP I think it is more a murder hobo problem than PC death issue. At session 0 it should be discussed whether being unlucky or careless should result in PC deaths but unless it is an evil PC campaign most of the party would not want to be associated with a character who kills people just for noticing they are being pickpocketed.
I should have clarified that in this case it was an Artificer Infused item. It was a replicate magic item, so my interpretation was that the infusion essentially got wiped by anti-magic field. GM had a couple of choices, the choice here was to wipe the infusion which meant that the bag returned to a mundane state. What should happen with the items within? Well, they are out there on some other plane somewhere.
It's been interesting to read different people's thoughts. It seems like some people think it's a times have changed and we've changed with them kind of a vibe. Others seem to be more interested in the other levels of potential consequences. I personally have found it difficult to host games that are other than 5e. It seems to be what most people want to play. Even reaching out online to people and offering earlier systems of D&D is overwhelmingly less popular, or so it seems to me.
Obviously, each of the examples I gave we could all sit and pick apart. The original scenario of pickpocketing, we as players already tried to stop the thief from their chosen course of action. We basically already did they 'it's not our business' line meaning we weren't getting involved. Generally speaking as a GM what consequences I put into motion are dictated by the system. In something like FATE or Fiasco it's going to be far more dictated by the storytelling than random dice rolls. In Blades in the Dark, consequences tend to be really severe anyway and last almost forever. I've tended to go down the line of the Skyrim system. There's a fine to pay, or time to serve. That gives a peaceful way of dealing with the consequences of actions. Though that itself has limitations. In one recent session the player had stashed their gold and when looking at their character sheet I had just seen the headline number of total gold...not realising that most of the gold wasn't on their person. As such I came up with what seemed to be a reasonable but painful amount of gold as their fine for arson...then had to scramble and work out which of their items they might be able to have sold to raised the gold because they didn't have enough for the fine.
I think it's fairly obvious that I do like the idea of consequences and I am that sort of DM. I know that we don't all run our games in the same way...for example as much as I hate reaction spells like Counterspell, Shield, or Silvery Barbs I'd never ban them...I do know other DMs who do insist that these spells 'break the game'. For me it's usually a case that I forget a particular player has access to these spells, don't see them coming and then internally hate that I didn't prepare for it in the encounter.
I also agree with some that not all consequences have to be death. About a year ago I explored the idea of introducing sundering or equipment being damaged. I even once considered 'what if you could have your shield/armour break rather than fall unconscious?' idea...sort of a final all or nothing save. It probably says something about me as a person engaging in the fictional that I want to see consequences to actions. I want to see the evil dude get punished, or I want to see the hard worker get rewarded.
More recently though I've been playtesting with this group of other DMs and I think I've become baffled by how we seem to tend more toward the positive consequence than the negative consequence some times. Of course opinions are like rear ends, everyone has one. Hearing other people's opinions and viewpoints helps me rebalance sometimes and find that centre ground which I tend to want to occupy. Finding that happy medium I think can be incredibly difficult that's one of things I find difficult to maintain.
So I want to loop back to the idea of "buying plot armor" because I think it misdirects my own take on the stakes in a game.
I won't ever say "Jenny bought this new character art this week so she can run around like a murder hobo and I won't care because, hey, she bought character art!" I mean, c'mon.
However, I want my players to be emotionally invested in the story we're telling wherein the dice are used to adjudicate the things we can't decide with logic at the table. If there's a chance of something going one way, we roll for it. But I also think there's a lot of value in taking the dice off the table and making sure that the end of the day we're having fun.
In my experience the DMs who are most tied to the "well what did you expect, X happened, so Y followed" are also seeing people leaving tables in frustration, and they did the same thing 30 years ago. I had a player in a Vampire game taunt and ridicule an elder member of the city council of vamps. When the elder dressed him down, he flippantly told him to stuff it. So he died. There was no need to roll dice because this was an elder vampire with dice pools so big and so fast that it would have been an exercise in humiliation. And that player didn't ever play at my table again. The game literally ended that session.
I think it was a miscue on my part. I stopped hanging around two friends, and never RPG'd with either of them again after that. So yeah, actions had consequences.
At the end, for me, the death of a character at the table due to random monster 17 is boring and dull. I don't care if they're adventurers who "knew the risks to exploring a dungeon". It's still lame. If a player who's made the base investment of coming every week, putting the time to prepare in, and work to be part of the table does all of that, then the least I can do is give them a good story. And if the player shows up and says "I don't care if my character dies to a nameless stuntman dressed up as a goblin" then I'm fine too. But MY fun is lessened when there isn't a good story behind why that character is no longer being played at the table.
I do DND to build fun stories. If a character dies, leaves the game, ect, it should have that story to it. Not "so Bob had a crap night and the DM kept rolling criticals and that's why he has a new character".
On a facebook group I recently noticed someone who'd come up with a novel trap idea that would effectively block a PCs ability to level up until they'd dealt with the curse in question. This sent me on a thought path. We see so often on these forums and other forums people bemoaning player characters who do some serious out of the box thinking and take random actions. Often, having come from other TTRPGs and having played D&D for almost two decades at this point I feel like we as a community of D&D players and GMs have someone minimised the idea of consequences having actions. Even now and these days I feel hesitant pulling the trigger on having enemy NPCs or monsters killing a PC. In the heat of the moment I sometimes divert from what I was going to do and instead have the NPCs offer a bargin, or require something to be done by the player characters in order to spare their lives. Trying to nail this down, I sort of feel like the more I've become part of the various online D&D communities I've been discouraged from inflicting serious consequences to player character actions. There seems often to be a narrative that player character death, or even serious consequences for player character actions should be avoided because the players in question might just take their ball and go home.
Thinking about board games I've often had more fun losing at Pandemic or Forbidden Island than I've had winning. The whole group is united and desperate to win despite the overwhelming odds. It pushes you as players to communicate more and to really consider your actions and their potential effects. The designers of these games did something amazing in making these types of games fun to lose! The same sort of applies to video games. Poor Alex Kidd died more times than is funny, but it always pushed me to keep going. Games like Darkest Dungeon and FTL bring something really interesting to the rogue-like/lite and permadeath genres. In XCOM I've become irrationally attached to these characters and still had them die on me making for a major, and sometimes game losing consequence.
Yet, time after time I see players of D&D act as if there isn't the possibility to begin playing a new character or even just writing out an existing character in order to keep playing. The various communities all seem to be very against the idea of consequences affecting player characters and I wonder if that isn't a narrative that we need to change?
I experienced the worst result of this kind of narrative at a table where I was playing rather than GMing (my usual role) where a player outright got up, walked away from the game and the table because their character had been arrested and had their hands chopped off without trial effectively nullifying that character who was now destined to rot in jail. Now I'll grant you that's an extreme consequence, but given that the PC first tried to unsuccessfully pickpocket an NPC, then when caught decided to kill said NPC which was then witnessed by bystanders which in turn drew the attention of town guards.
To me this chain of events seemed reasonable. Yeah, this brand new to town adventurer did something utterly despicable. Of course there are going to be consequences. The GM in question even gave the player an extra freebie warning of 'you're not trying to be sneaky here? There are people on the streets, are you sure you want to attack the NPC? This might attract the wrong sort of attention!' Player in question quite clearly had the chain of thoughts that the NPC had a key they wanted and they were determined to get it. Still said player just threw a fit over their character being eliminated, they were full of moaning that the GM wasn't 'playing the game properly' and was 'clearly new to all this', 'you'll never be able to run a campaign if you do this kind of stuff'.
Now, I hate to stereotype here, but I know the player in question watches a lot of D&D streamed games. I won't lie, I've always felt like most of them are like watching paint dry compared to actually playing. About the only one that I really enjoy was Oxventure but even then there are videos of the GM there stating they'd never kill off one of the Oxventurers (short of a request from a player) because it's an entertainment show and audiences love the characters. Even if we look at Critical Role, the very heavily orchestrated and produced way in which Travis Willingham's Campaign 3 first character was written out kind of reveals one of the major weaknesses about these streamed D&D games. They're being treated so much more like the TV shows that they really are than a game of D&D. This makes me wonder if maybe all the streams around are part of the reason for the avoidance of consequences of PC actions?
So, I guess what I'm curious to hear is what are other GM/DM perspectives on this? Have you seen players react more negatively in the last decade to consequences for their characters? Are consequences something we (or maybe even WotC) should highlight more? Are we letting players get too attached to their characters? Do you ensure that there are consequences for Player Character actions in your games? How severe do you make those consequences?
DM session planning template - My version of maps for 'Lost Mine of Phandelver' - Send your party to The Circus - Other DM Resources - Maps, Tokens, Quests - 'Better' Player Character Injury Tables?
Actor, Writer, Director & Teacher by day - GM/DM in my off hours.
I think it's important to distinguish between player action and active player choice. Sometimes players are in a situation where the DM lays three options in front of them and says "you may A, B, or C", and one of those options is The Bad One, and the players might not have a way of knowing which one that is. So, they act as their characters would (in an actual roleplay way, not in a murder-hobo way) and they, by chance discover that B was The Bad One. As the DM, I would not put death on the table for them in this instance where the player choice was passive, based on a scenario I contrived, even if the players acted rashly in its execution (maybe they taunted the bad guy and it got too personal, now the bad guy is insecure about their large ears, still no, I'm not killing any players on purpose).
Compare that to if I, as the DM, instead of saying "pick A, B, or C", instead I said "Here's the situation, here's what you know, here's what you can do to learn more, come up with a plan." Now it is on the players to actively choose how to proceed. They have access to information and the means to gather intel on the mission. They can figure out what they're facing and how best to counter it. IF they have those opportunities and they do not use them, and actively choose to go in unprepared, or prepare under an incorrect assumption, or otherwise choose a course of action that means the situation goes south for them, then I'm OK with player death being on the table (as long as during session 0 you discussed with the players that this is a campaign where death can happen if you underprepare and the players were cool with it).
The difference is that players aren't often in the position to make real, active choice. Often they're presented with options by the DM, and therfore it's easier to feel set up as a player if you take what the DM gave you and get killed off for it.
The issue is that the second instance, where the players have access to all this intel and the situation is difficult and intricate enough to not only require, but also reward good planning in a satisfactory way, is really really difficult to plan out, and requires an internal consistency to your game world that is just very hard for the average DM to do justice. So instead we just try to plan out enough passive choices to present our players in enough places to seem intricate and internally consistent, but most of what we do is present options. Hell, I do it, I'm often at a loss between judging if an encounter is hard enough to be satisfying or hard enough to accidentally TPK my people, and a TPK that's my fault and not theirs is no fun for anyone involved.
Basically I think the reason player death is so rare is that the situations in which it is justified are really hard to bring about, and in this day and age we've mostly come to the conclusion that an unjustified player death just kind of ruins people's enjoyment most of the time.
This all sounds like a session 0 conversation. Decide what works for your table, with your table, and stick to it. I’d be generally hesitant to normalize most things, that implies the is a normal, or right, way to play.
So, I'd disagree with your assessment of the situation. The session zero for this short run game was very clear that consequences to character actions could be expected. The DM clearly highlighted that the course of action was going to negatively impact the character in question. The player chose to ignore these warnings. They actively made the choice that no, they weren't going to do the trifling fetch quest for the NPC, they were going to get the mcguffin in the fastest way possible.
To my mind that's kind of like deciding to play fortnite or such without picking up any weapons. You can certainly do it, but it's pretty obvious that making that choice will have negative consequences.
I fear I disagree with your entire premise here, it feels like it shunts too little responsibility onto the players and their choices. Take something like Blades in the Dark, I reference that game frequently because it is a very harsh, very difficult TTRPG. Every action of a player character has consequences and they are, mostly going to make things more difficult. I've never yet witnessed a player in those games moan and throw fits like D&D players. Ditto for any one of the dozens of other TTRPGs I've played over the years. It seems to be a uniquely D&D problem where we seem to feel the need to justify player character death.
As a writer, a character death is an essential tool in any type of writing. My particular experience does happen to be novels and stageplays, but I have also written a screenplay or two in my time. Take something like Buffy the Vampire Slayer for example. The writing out of characters was an essential tool in pushing other character arcs and developing the story further. As a writer you don't justify character death, you just kill off the character.
Now, if we apply such to the TTRPG collaborative process (which arguably shouldn't be too dissimilar to the writers' room of a TV show), by forcing the group to have to come up with this nebulous idea of a 'justification' for character death, you deny a tool in the toolkit for the players to utilise. Likewise, any consequence short of death. What happens if a PC is caught stealing? Should they suffer no consequences at all? What if the known penalty for theft was the removal of a hand? The PCs know this, yet still they decide they're going to try it out anyway. Should we really walk back established lore in favour of plot armour for our PCs?
Personally, I've found that this has even stretched to feeling guilty for having players lose their items. Recently someone stepped into an anti-magic field and lost their bag of holding and everything within it. But if it's been highlighted that magic isn't penetrating this area around someone/something (which it was highlighted) and the PC makes the decision to step into the field then great. Their decision has a weight to it.
Let's say a PC decides to step keep grappling the bad guy to ensure they do in fact get banished or sent through a magic portal of some kind. That PC knows, or should know, that a potential consequence to their action is that their action may mean they'll end up wherever the bad guy is being sent. That they chose to take the action anyway has weight when paired with consequences.
And for the record, players...at least at my tables do have a free choice. Entirely free. I make that clear. It's rare but I have had parties entirely ignore the prepared material. In such cases it'll mean hastily drawn battlemaps (if not reverting to theatre of the mind), but it's into the realm of improv...a skill which all GMs should have or at least be prepared to develop.
To be more detailed here though, it's not about the whole character death thing. I mean, Character death should in my opinion always be on the table, or else why does anything the PCs do matter? You've taken the biggest potential risk away from those PCs. That strikes wrong to me. If a teacher steps between a gun and a child that teacher is displaying immense bravery, courage, and ultimately pastoral care. If Superman steps in front of that same gun, he's risking absolutely nothing. It is literally nothing for him to do that and is a big reason why he's such a dreadfully dull character. For that teacher however, it is everything. They are risking everything they have, and even risking those around them experiencing loss by taking that action. Understanding that connection, understanding that human beings are willing to do incredible things in the name of what is right, cuts to the core of our humanity. It's why so much of what our fiction and human culture fixates on is death and extreme circumstances. I honestly believe that if we allow player characters to have outcomes not including death they become superman. They are risking absolutely nothing. If we're not willing to remove their items, have the PCs locked away, injured, or any other consequence, we rob them of the motivation to do anything. If there is no risk, there's no point to what they are doing. At all. I think that cuts to just why it is that I feel a need to buck away from this trend of minimising consequences in D&D. Because currently, in some of the games I GM, it's all sort of pointless.
That's not to say I'm going to kill off the PCs willy nilly. Nor am I going to go about seeking to have PC equipment stolen. I do think it's a conversation that bears weight and that we should all be having around TTRPGs. Risk and consequence are what make unique acts of random kindness so much more meaningful both in our fictions but in the real world.
DM session planning template - My version of maps for 'Lost Mine of Phandelver' - Send your party to The Circus - Other DM Resources - Maps, Tokens, Quests - 'Better' Player Character Injury Tables?
Actor, Writer, Director & Teacher by day - GM/DM in my off hours.
The point was to try and open a discussion not in the specific but in the abstract. Of course you are correct, we do need to discuss these things with our players in session zero. However, I have begun to notice more and more a trend of D&D attracting players who are not happy to see any consequence to their PC actions. A problem which doesn't seem as prevalent in other TTRPGs.
DM session planning template - My version of maps for 'Lost Mine of Phandelver' - Send your party to The Circus - Other DM Resources - Maps, Tokens, Quests - 'Better' Player Character Injury Tables?
Actor, Writer, Director & Teacher by day - GM/DM in my off hours.
Well, why is it a problem? It may not be how I’d prefer to play, but if I’m not at that table, why should I care how other people have fun. And if I am at that table, it’s something we’d all discover in session 0. Either we’d sort it out and find a compromise that works for everyone, or someone would realize that table’s game isn’t for them and politely leave. I mean, ideally they’d be polite, there’s a lot of jackasses out there, but there’s not much to be done about that
The idea that it is a problem to be solved implies there is only one correct way to play, and people who do it differently are wrong and need to be educated about that one correct way.
I’d rather have a game that attracts all kinds of players. More people playing means more people buying books means a more robust hobby for everyone.
As a writer myself, I disagree with this philosophy. That's how you end up with Game of Thrones just tossing aside 3 seasons' worth of character investment for a quick cash in on shock value until nobody cares how the show ends anymore.
Even with the Buffy example, I think the most memorable character deaths aren't the ones where the writers went "welp,
Tara
needs to die here, random bang!" The most memorable deaths are the ones where the show has a way of telegraphing that its coming, and you feel the tension of "will they actually...? Are they gonna find some way out...?". I think it's the season 2 or 3 finale when you have Angellus opening the portal to suck the world into a hell dimension, and you have Willow trying to restore his soul, Buffy doesn't know it, she's fighting him she thinks to the death-- killing him is the only way to stop the portal-- and the whole time you watch your like "nooo just stall him and willow will do the thing!" And she does, but a moment too late. Angel is back, but the portal is open, and Buffy only has a moment to recognize he's back before she has to kill him anyways.
In the heroic adventure genre, of the save-the-world variety where the stakes are big and the characters are drive the narrative (like a show like Buffy, or the style that most modern DnD games mimic), that's a really good character death. It had layers, tension, setup-- maybe my use of the word "justification" was too vague a way to say it, but what I mean was the death was *earned.* Not just earned by the character, but earned by the narrative, within the context of the genre, it wasn't a cheap death that existed just for shock value (like much of the wasted potential on Game of Thrones). A good player death should be earned not just by the player but by the DM. You should come away from it thinking "yeah, I may not like it, but that's definitely how that happens."
The big difference is that the high-lethality games of the 70's and 80's weren't Buffy, they weren't the same genre. They largely weren't 'save the world' narratives and they weren't driven by the sheer force of the interesting personalities of the player characters, the stakes were lower, often more about gathering riches for the player's own personal reasons, and the characters were reactive to the world, and it was more a PvE episodic challenge like the shorter pulp novels that generation of gamers grew up with. I think the difference is that while life can be cheap in that kind of game because your fourth character this campaign didn't tap the right cobble with their 10-ft pole and got dissolved, doesn't feel like a hero, they're an extension of you you use to explore the game that grows more of a personality the longer they make it. That's just not the way most people play anymore, and character death becoming rarer I don't think is necessarily something to kick back against.
Expecting a generation of gamers who grew up on Buffy to play a game as imagined by a generation that grew up on pulp fantasy in the same way doesn't add up. Of course people inspired into the hobby by different things want to play differently. Character-driven narrative structure is just more the trend nowadays and the way the game is played has adjusted to reflect it.
I agree with Xalthu in that I don't view it as a problem in the abstract any more than I view hack'n'slash as a problem in the abstract. Neither of them happen to be my preferred way of playing D&D, and nothing forces me to experience games run like that. So in the abstract, there is no problem. It's just not what I consider enjoyable.
Now, if I find myself at a table that won't let me roleplay, or if my new player objects to the possibility that I might kill his level 1 fighter...yes, now it's a problem because there is a mismatch of gaming values or, at minimum, unclear expectations that involve me specifically. And while there are some trends in D&D that I'm not a fan of, they are easy enough to avoid until they affect me specifically. Things trending in a direction I don't like might be annoying, but the beauty of this hobby is that absolutely nothing matters except what is agreed upon at each individual table, and if I find a table that shares my gaming preferences, all that annoyance becomes background noise.
So here's where I'm at - If you and your players are having fun, nothing else matters.
It doesn't matter what I'm doing at my table. It doesn't matter what Matt Mercer is doing at his table. It doesn't matter what Gygax would have wanted and if he's doing spirals in his grave.
If you and your players are having fun, then you are doing it right. Any effort to "normalize" anything but that is just chatter.
I find the use of the Buffy example as interesting because frankly I think the random deaths that Whedon loves to include in his writing does the opposite for me. It doesn't invest me in the narrative it pushes me out. In another movie he wrote and produced, when a particular character was just boom, reaped out of being alive I was ready to leave the theater. Not out of anger but just out of disinterest. I didn't pay $20 for a ticket to be depressed 2 hours later. I didn't get a babysitter so I could be reminded that the world sucks. Heck open today's news for another reminder of that.
So for me, games like DND are escapist story telling. I don't mind if my players are seeing them as more about compelling narrative and roleplay rather than harsh tactical engagements. I like that people invest, that they get art done for their characters. That they write long backstories. That they meet up on discord to hash out little 'in jokes'. I find a lot more value in this.
I've also learned that "Whelp, your character is dead!" is a generally unfun way to play the game. I understand how as the DM you might find yourself thinking "what did they expect? Didn't they hear me tell them that this was going to go badly?" And what I've finally figured out is that instead of a summary execution, you stop the game, you look at your players and you say "well... lookit.. is this what you want?" and "this isn't something I'm okay with at this table so we need to hash this out" and maybe even as the DM "I'm confused as to what you all see happening here because it SEEMS that A is a very logical consequence and I don't see pathways to B and C." The hand cutting is a great example. Before the player's character is effectively executed and the player tossed out of the game, you stop and you talk about what's about to happen and why you feel it should. And then you ASK the players what it is they see happening. And if you can't come to agreement then you don't have to torture anyone by making them stay at a table they're not having fun at-- You included!
Overall. Have fun. Play with people who are fun. And communicate with the people to maximize fun.
"Teller of tales, dreamer of dreams"
Tips, Tricks, Maps: Lantern Noir Presents
**Streams hosted at at twitch.tv/LaternNoir
I'm always of the opinion that actions should have consequences. If you don't want a character to die, maybe they shouldn't be an adventurer. It's a tough job.
The threat of death adds meaning to the game. If there's no real threat of death without the DM asking you 7 times "are you sure you want to do this? I'm gonna kill ya if ya do," then the HP and death saving throws and really the whole game is just an illusion. It's just becomes a way of making people think that death is an option, when really it isn't. It might work for a little while, running off of the falsified idea that actions can have consequences, but eventually logic catches up and people start to realize "nothing I do can have any negative effect, so why does it matter?" If the game only has the illusion of stakes instead of an actual threat, then people will start to notice, and eventually they'll stop caring.
In a way, it's a Roadrunner problem. You run (which represents having fun) for a while on the open road (which represents a game with stakes). If the road runs out and it's just open air (a lack of stakes), you might not notice for a while. You keep running because of the illusion that you're still on the freeway, because of the illusion that actions can have consequences. Eventually, of course, you look down. Then you stop running, and you start falling. It's inevitably unsustainable; everybody looks down sooner or later.
Look at what you've done. You spoiled it. You have nobody to blame but yourself. Go sit and think about your actions.
Don't be mean. Rudeness is a vicious cycle, and it has to stop somewhere. Exceptions for things that are funny.
Go to the current Competition of the Finest 'Brews! It's a cool place where cool people make cool things.
How I'm posting based on text formatting: Mod Hat Off - Mod Hat Also Off (I'm not a mod)
I don't think that we as a movement need to normalize player consequences, it depends on your group and what you want to run as a DM. I like to run a consequential game, if you do something stupid, then you will pay the price. This makes a lot of sense to me and frees up a lot of my time as a DM. For example, I tell my players that I am running a Good focused campaign and that I am writing encounters with that in mind. They are free to do things that are outside of that, but there are consequences. They can run with this, but if they choose to be evil then they have to deal with it and if they do it well, then their character will eventually diverge from the party to an extent that I will take it over, write it into the campaign as a serious enemy and use it as a true threat; with inside knowledge of the party. At this point they get to roll up a new character. I don't have the time or patience to run what is effectively a side campaign because someone wants to diverge. They can if they want, but there is a price and I will make it as interesting and as fun as I can and I think that it can be really rewarding, even if the character meets an untimely end.
This sort of play isn't for everyone, but it really inspires me as a DM and sets up a precedent for my players for what to expect. We are all busy and only get so much time to write up adventures and we have to limit the scope of choices to some degree. The way I am running it frees up my players to make very consequential choices, that may get them killed or lose their characters, but it is engaging (in our experience).
But this assumes that the only thing that really matters is the death of the character. Is that the real stakes? And how far do we want people to go to minimize those stakes?
Like, let's assume you've got someone who is really invested in your game. They've spent $300 out of pocket on two custom mini's, a set of custom dice, and then commissioned two bits of artwork to show their character. Do you think that a) character death/ game removal is on their radar? and b) death is the only thing they want to avoid?
Failure can take a lot of forms and players will always try to avoid it. Death is just one of them and I think the least interesting. There are lots of other things that can happen that can create a sense of stakes without it being death. Losing face to a noble, having a romantic interest show dislike or dismissal, having a god turn away from a cleric. These are all things that are not death but can a) impact a character and b) create a sense of loss. They're all things that the players will actively work to avoid.
On the other hand, if your only tool in the box is the hammer of character death, you are much less likely to see that kind of investment at the table. I won't get commissioned work for my OC if I think that next week a few 1's on a random die means I need to make a new character. And having played back in the "don't worry if I die, I've got a new character ready to go", I really don't want to go back there.
"Teller of tales, dreamer of dreams"
Tips, Tricks, Maps: Lantern Noir Presents
**Streams hosted at at twitch.tv/LaternNoir
If you don't want your character to die, then you should play your character as somebody who doesn't want to die.
HP getting low, back away from the fight, and find an exist strategy from that immediate location.
Without the real fear of death, the entire "adventuring" career is a lot less dangerous.
I fully agree with the DM in the OP scenario where they warned the player about their character's actions, and the player decided to go through with it. So I feel no sorrow for that player at all.
This seems like a lot and to much to ask of most DM's. Spending money on something imaginary is one thing, but expecting that to influence the game in any way is quite another, and frankly seems a bit crazy. If they are that serious about their character, then they will put some real thought into playing it. These characters are only an investment of imagination, anything beyond that superfluous.
Sure, death isn't the only threat to a party. But when you're delving through dungeons, avoiding traps, and fighting monsters, it's usually the main one. Like I said, the HP and death saving throw systems are there for a reason. If you just ignore the threat of death, they become mere illusions.
I don't think that, assuming they knew going into the campaign that actions can have consequences, they should be able to spend $300 and then get plot armor. They knew that their character could die when they spent all that money, and they accepted that. I don't think that killing the character makes all that useless, and I certainly don't think that they have a right to be shocked when something they knew could happen happens.
Look at what you've done. You spoiled it. You have nobody to blame but yourself. Go sit and think about your actions.
Don't be mean. Rudeness is a vicious cycle, and it has to stop somewhere. Exceptions for things that are funny.
Go to the current Competition of the Finest 'Brews! It's a cool place where cool people make cool things.
How I'm posting based on text formatting: Mod Hat Off - Mod Hat Also Off (I'm not a mod)
1)Have some players become big babies, maybe, or have they always been there and with social media, and more online things we are just more aware of them? Its hard to say. people who act like that don't get invited back to my table.
2) Yes we should all highlight that there are real in-game consequences to the choices your characters makes in game. This is something I always cover in session 0. I let my players know that I am not the enemy, I am not out to get them, or trying to beat them, but if they make foolish decisions in-game the dice will decide their fate. I always use the example that if their party decides to go looking for an ancient dragon at level 5, they may find one, and they will almost certainty all die. I also make sure they know that there is a "legal system" in this imaginary world, so things like theft and murder have consequences if they get caught.
3) It is hard to say if a player can get to attached to their PC. I want my players to care about their PCs, I want them to be invested. 5e (RAW)is just not as gritty as previous versions of the game, where it seemed like PC death was more of a norm. There is probably good and bad with this. Personally I like the long term character stories that kind of start to auto generate them selves over the course of a long campaign with the same PCs. but PC death can do the same thing for the rest of the party.
4) I always have consequences for the choices PCs make, That's the best way to make the world feel real. The severity depends on the actions the PC took to get themselves into the situation. I always try to have the consequences be something that the PC can potentially avoid or get out of with good/really good roles, and I always let things play out. For example in the scenario where the PC ultimately had their hands cut off and they were left in prison to rot, I would never just say "you've been arrested and your hands have been cut off" I would set it up in such a way that they had choices, flea? fight with the town watch, ect. Give the rest of the party time to see if they want to rescue the arrested PC or leave them to their consequences. In a situation like above where a PC murdered a NPC even if they did escape the town guard and flea, they would have a bounty placed on their head and eventually more and more bounty hunters, town watches, kings guards, ect would come looking for them. But is some cases there is no way out, like in the example I give my players in session 0, if you decide to wander into a ancient red dragons lair at 5 level and try to steal something from its hoard......there is about 100% chance the dice are going to kill you without any help from me.
Unless the players and the PCs known exactly what will happen that is rather harsh. RAW In an anti magic field magic items become mundane while in the sphere so a bag of holding would be a normal bag you that you could not get your stuff out of until leaving 5he anti magic area.
Going back to the OP I think it is more a murder hobo problem than PC death issue. At session 0 it should be discussed whether being unlucky or careless should result in PC deaths but unless it is an evil PC campaign most of the party would not want to be associated with a character who kills people just for noticing they are being pickpocketed.
I should have clarified that in this case it was an Artificer Infused item. It was a replicate magic item, so my interpretation was that the infusion essentially got wiped by anti-magic field. GM had a couple of choices, the choice here was to wipe the infusion which meant that the bag returned to a mundane state. What should happen with the items within? Well, they are out there on some other plane somewhere.
DM session planning template - My version of maps for 'Lost Mine of Phandelver' - Send your party to The Circus - Other DM Resources - Maps, Tokens, Quests - 'Better' Player Character Injury Tables?
Actor, Writer, Director & Teacher by day - GM/DM in my off hours.
It's been interesting to read different people's thoughts. It seems like some people think it's a times have changed and we've changed with them kind of a vibe. Others seem to be more interested in the other levels of potential consequences. I personally have found it difficult to host games that are other than 5e. It seems to be what most people want to play. Even reaching out online to people and offering earlier systems of D&D is overwhelmingly less popular, or so it seems to me.
Obviously, each of the examples I gave we could all sit and pick apart. The original scenario of pickpocketing, we as players already tried to stop the thief from their chosen course of action. We basically already did they 'it's not our business' line meaning we weren't getting involved. Generally speaking as a GM what consequences I put into motion are dictated by the system. In something like FATE or Fiasco it's going to be far more dictated by the storytelling than random dice rolls. In Blades in the Dark, consequences tend to be really severe anyway and last almost forever. I've tended to go down the line of the Skyrim system. There's a fine to pay, or time to serve. That gives a peaceful way of dealing with the consequences of actions. Though that itself has limitations. In one recent session the player had stashed their gold and when looking at their character sheet I had just seen the headline number of total gold...not realising that most of the gold wasn't on their person. As such I came up with what seemed to be a reasonable but painful amount of gold as their fine for arson...then had to scramble and work out which of their items they might be able to have sold to raised the gold because they didn't have enough for the fine.
I think it's fairly obvious that I do like the idea of consequences and I am that sort of DM. I know that we don't all run our games in the same way...for example as much as I hate reaction spells like Counterspell, Shield, or Silvery Barbs I'd never ban them...I do know other DMs who do insist that these spells 'break the game'. For me it's usually a case that I forget a particular player has access to these spells, don't see them coming and then internally hate that I didn't prepare for it in the encounter.
I also agree with some that not all consequences have to be death. About a year ago I explored the idea of introducing sundering or equipment being damaged. I even once considered 'what if you could have your shield/armour break rather than fall unconscious?' idea...sort of a final all or nothing save. It probably says something about me as a person engaging in the fictional that I want to see consequences to actions. I want to see the evil dude get punished, or I want to see the hard worker get rewarded.
More recently though I've been playtesting with this group of other DMs and I think I've become baffled by how we seem to tend more toward the positive consequence than the negative consequence some times. Of course opinions are like rear ends, everyone has one. Hearing other people's opinions and viewpoints helps me rebalance sometimes and find that centre ground which I tend to want to occupy. Finding that happy medium I think can be incredibly difficult that's one of things I find difficult to maintain.
DM session planning template - My version of maps for 'Lost Mine of Phandelver' - Send your party to The Circus - Other DM Resources - Maps, Tokens, Quests - 'Better' Player Character Injury Tables?
Actor, Writer, Director & Teacher by day - GM/DM in my off hours.
So I want to loop back to the idea of "buying plot armor" because I think it misdirects my own take on the stakes in a game.
I won't ever say "Jenny bought this new character art this week so she can run around like a murder hobo and I won't care because, hey, she bought character art!" I mean, c'mon.
However, I want my players to be emotionally invested in the story we're telling wherein the dice are used to adjudicate the things we can't decide with logic at the table. If there's a chance of something going one way, we roll for it. But I also think there's a lot of value in taking the dice off the table and making sure that the end of the day we're having fun.
In my experience the DMs who are most tied to the "well what did you expect, X happened, so Y followed" are also seeing people leaving tables in frustration, and they did the same thing 30 years ago. I had a player in a Vampire game taunt and ridicule an elder member of the city council of vamps. When the elder dressed him down, he flippantly told him to stuff it. So he died. There was no need to roll dice because this was an elder vampire with dice pools so big and so fast that it would have been an exercise in humiliation. And that player didn't ever play at my table again. The game literally ended that session.
I think it was a miscue on my part. I stopped hanging around two friends, and never RPG'd with either of them again after that. So yeah, actions had consequences.
At the end, for me, the death of a character at the table due to random monster 17 is boring and dull. I don't care if they're adventurers who "knew the risks to exploring a dungeon". It's still lame. If a player who's made the base investment of coming every week, putting the time to prepare in, and work to be part of the table does all of that, then the least I can do is give them a good story. And if the player shows up and says "I don't care if my character dies to a nameless stuntman dressed up as a goblin" then I'm fine too. But MY fun is lessened when there isn't a good story behind why that character is no longer being played at the table.
I do DND to build fun stories. If a character dies, leaves the game, ect, it should have that story to it. Not "so Bob had a crap night and the DM kept rolling criticals and that's why he has a new character".
"Teller of tales, dreamer of dreams"
Tips, Tricks, Maps: Lantern Noir Presents
**Streams hosted at at twitch.tv/LaternNoir