I wouldn't play on such a table. To be locked out of a game for months or years if your character dies? I'm not going to want to invest in a group which I could be kicked out of at any moment due to a bad roll or two. Losing your character is bad enough.
So no, I haven't, and wouldn't consider it either.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
If you were a DM how would you feel if a player than imposed that rule upon themselves?
I'd feel bad. I'd feel like because I didn't pull any punches and let the world fall as it fell, I drove the player away. I would feel like the player left because of their character dying, and I would then change how I play to avoid this happening again. The heroes of the world would grow rich and powerful under the dotage of a god too afraid to let them die. They would gradually come to realise that no matter what they do, what they attempt, their actions will never leave them dying, and so they would turn to evil. They would slaughter villages, and laugh as the guards swarm them because they know they have nothing to fear. Their greed and confidence in their immortality will have them oversee the death of the world itself, with every person in it murdered or worse. They will solo hunt ancient dragons in the nude for sport, but in the end they will find themselves without a challenge, and gow vengeful. Suddenly, the only thing between these disillusioned players and the weak god who couldn't let them die is a flimsy piece of card. One of the players leaps onto the table and kicks it aside, dice scattering. I look up, aghast at what I created, and realise too late what I had done. But the player doesn't attack - for in their heart, they know they can only win. It is all they know. Their life is a challengeless emptiness that I have created.
Personally, I wouldn't recommend it. Plus, DM's are hard to come by, so if you exclude yourself from the group, you're likely to struggle to find another!
If you were a DM how would you feel if a player than imposed that rule upon themselves?
As a DM, I wouldn't want to invest time and effort into integrating that player character with its backstory in my campaign, because it is all for nothing, if the player leaves when dying. It is much more fun for me, when the backstory of my players lives on, even when the char is dead.
Comments have been a lot more negative than I've expected.
No one would you accept that as a limitation of the game/player. Play normally and if the player dies no matter if that was level 1-20, thank them for their time and wish good luck for the next campaign?
Comments have been a lot more negative than I've expected.
No one would you accept that as a limitation of the game/player. Play normally and if the player dies no matter if that was level 1-20, thank them for their time and wish good luck for the next campaign?
My campaigns typically span 3-4 years playing with a fixed group. So, that is almost like, never see you again to that player.
Comments have been a lot more negative than I've expected.
No one would you accept that as a limitation of the game/player. Play normally and if the player dies no matter if that was level 1-20, thank them for their time and wish good luck for the next campaign?
The way you have prosed your questions have been negative, therefore the responses have mimicked the prose.
The implication of both questions to most people here speaks to overall table dynamics. If I'm going to speak beyond the questions of your original post?
For question 1: The DM doesn't give two shits about the players, only the story. That doesn't speak to a very socially friendly environment, which I want to foster far and beyond any tabletop game I'm even entertaining the thought of participating in. I don't play games in groups with people who aren't friends, and because something like this has the potential of excluding someone for weeks, months and potentially years? That isn't good friendship and by association that isn't good tabletop manners.
For question 2 that you prosed, I'd ask them if they'd rather leave, but there are follow up questions based on their response. Why are you looking to play with such limitations on you as a player? Those aren't character limitations they are imposing, but limitations on themselves. Is there something that is leading you to that playstyle? Is something coming up in your life that you know will be a deal breaker later on down the road in terms of attending? Are there table dynamics that we need to revisit?
Neither question to me seems to be in good roleplaying form. Even the most grimdark permadeath campaigns allow for players to come in fresh with a new character provided there isn't a TPK. I can't fathom personally a good social OR story reason why excluding someone from play permanently because their character died, either as a self imposed restriction or a DM imposed restriction.
I think I can see how that might come across to a player as the DM advertised it.
For the second point, I suppose that while we might not be able to fathom a good reason for a player to play this way, doesn't actually mean one doesn't exist.
If it was a one off, the whole thing will be finished in one sitting, then yes that is a fine rule. The player can sit around a comment on the play but must be careful about giving away ideas and influencing play.
the beer and pizza is there, have at it.
As a long campaign no. But you could add in a limit on the level the character could come back as. If the average character level is 5 or less then they come back as a first level character, if the average is 6 through 10 then they come back as a 6th level and so on.
If you were a DM how would you feel if a player than imposed that rule upon themselves?
I'd be very curious as to why.
If they're doing it equate they feel that's the consequence of "losing", I'd explain that D&D isn't musical statues. They can just roll up another character and explore that one instead. Or we can introduce a subplot where the party has to go on a quest to resurrect their character. Or something. Why would they feel need to quit the game and not continue to enjoy the game?
I'd be concerned though that it's an attempt to leverage me into protecting their character. "Don't let my character die or I'll stop playing with you". I don’t really have an issue with the principle - I just want them to have fun - but if they're willing to go about it in that way, trying to pressure me rather than just asking, then that doesn't bode well.
If theybreally want to play like that, then that's fine...but I don’t see the benefit in doing so or how it makes things more fun. If they'd rather be DM, or want to learn, then I'm happy to work something out. If they're attached go their character, I'm happy to nudge things so they won't die. But there are more fun things to do than "a bad roll of the dice and I'm not playing anymore". I just want everyone to maximise their fun.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
Comments have been a lot more negative than I've expected.
No one would you accept that as a limitation of the game/player. Play normally and if the player dies no matter if that was level 1-20, thank them for their time and wish good luck for the next campaign?
I think any idea that puts the campaign/story above the actual people playing the game is going to be received negatively. It's just approaching the game from the wrong perspective, often one of an "armchair DM" who thinks a lot about the game but doesn't actually play it much so they forget to consider the human element.
Stiff death penalties are often imposed as a way to try to force a player to care about their character, which is generally not effective because that's not how caring works.
I mean, if that's how the player plays, I guess them's the breaks? As for the DM dismissing players, I mean, I guess if that's how the DM rolls. I wouldn't expect the player to hang around waiting to get back in and will likely float to another group if they otherwise enjoyed playing.
In TTRPGs with a higher degree of lethality, like Alien, additional NPCs or just backup PCs are often included as part of the team for players to assume control to play out the rest of the adventure.
i think in campaign play, this stuff should be figured out at Session 0 ... though I'd say the conventional practice would be for the DM and player to figure out how to bring that player into the game through a new character.
The exceptions would be in a game, usually a one shot, where there's going to be a "last character standing" or presumed TPK type situation.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
Does anyone, or has anyone played a limit of one character sheet per player per campaign? Either imposed by the DM or an Individual Player?
Meaning that if a player dies and can't be resurrected the player leavers the table?
I think it's a bad idea. D&D is a social game for friends to get together and play. This idea would make a friend leave the activity based on something they may not have control over. If they needed to leave and wanted to go out with a bang, sure, a DM could come up with some suitably heroic death for them, but to make them leave the activity because the dice didn't go their way? Nah, not for me. If a player asked for this restriction for themselves I would think that they didn't want to commit to the group and wanted an out.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Canto alla vita alla sua bellezza ad ogni sua ferita ogni sua carezza!
I sing to life and to its tragic beauty To pain and to strife, but all that dances through me The rise and the fall, I've lived through it all!
Why not just keep the same group of players (assuming they're cool enough to keep around), and if ANY character dies (and can't be rez'd), the entire group starts over with a new adventure/campaign.
It keeps the harshness of one and done PCs - which can have it's own downfalls:
Players get mad if their character dies in a ridiculous way (especially if not their fault)
Players play recklessly and danger gets tossed aside because it's YOLO anyway.
What you're trying to accomplish with a one and done concept has nothing to do with punishing players. That's needlessly harsh and really doesn't make sense.
On another (related) note, I play D&D for three main reasons - each given various weight over the 40+ years I've played:
To share a passion with people I deem important enough to share that passion with. Shared excitement among those that "get it."
To foster a passion among people other than myself. One consequence of the efforts I put into my games is establishing new and lifelong friendships. Your premise seems to lean towards getting rid of people.
If I was a DM at the table and the player wanted it, I wouldn't accept the player. I'd feel like I'd either have to pull my punches and/or let them get away with ridiculous shennagains in order to ensure they didn't die... or waste any time in any investment I planned for the character. It would just be a big time sink with no forseeable payoff.
If I was a player and the DM required it, I wouldn't want to play at the table. I'd constantly start getting weirded out and second guessing the DM if I thought we were put in scenarios that the team wasn't ready for... I wouldn't feel comfortable playing such a game.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Does anyone, or has anyone played a limit of one character sheet per player per campaign? Either imposed by the DM or an Individual Player?
Meaning that if a player dies and can't be resurrected the player leavers the table?
No, because I like having friends.
I wouldn't play on such a table. To be locked out of a game for months or years if your character dies? I'm not going to want to invest in a group which I could be kicked out of at any moment due to a bad roll or two. Losing your character is bad enough.
So no, I haven't, and wouldn't consider it either.
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
Same, seems like a waste of time and effort, being unable to see the group and story to develop and come to an end.
Edit:
Could also easily kill the group if the replacements do not fit into the group dynamic. Hard enough to find decent players.
I do have a sub question, to the 1st
If you were a DM how would you feel if a player than imposed that rule upon themselves?
I'd ask them immediately if they'd just rather quit. The question posed in my eyes is looking for a way out. Why delay the inevitable?
I'd feel bad. I'd feel like because I didn't pull any punches and let the world fall as it fell, I drove the player away. I would feel like the player left because of their character dying, and I would then change how I play to avoid this happening again. The heroes of the world would grow rich and powerful under the dotage of a god too afraid to let them die. They would gradually come to realise that no matter what they do, what they attempt, their actions will never leave them dying, and so they would turn to evil. They would slaughter villages, and laugh as the guards swarm them because they know they have nothing to fear. Their greed and confidence in their immortality will have them oversee the death of the world itself, with every person in it murdered or worse. They will solo hunt ancient dragons in the nude for sport, but in the end they will find themselves without a challenge, and gow vengeful. Suddenly, the only thing between these disillusioned players and the weak god who couldn't let them die is a flimsy piece of card. One of the players leaps onto the table and kicks it aside, dice scattering. I look up, aghast at what I created, and realise too late what I had done. But the player doesn't attack - for in their heart, they know they can only win. It is all they know. Their life is a challengeless emptiness that I have created.
Personally, I wouldn't recommend it. Plus, DM's are hard to come by, so if you exclude yourself from the group, you're likely to struggle to find another!
Make your Artificer work with any other class with 174 Multiclassing Feats for your Artificer Multiclass Character!
DM's Guild Releases on This Thread Or check them all out on DMs Guild!
DrivethruRPG Releases on This Thread - latest release: My Character is a Werewolf: balanced rules for Lycanthropy!
I have started discussing/reviewing 3rd party D&D content on Substack - stay tuned for semi-regular posts!
As a DM, I wouldn't want to invest time and effort into integrating that player character with its backstory in my campaign, because it is all for nothing, if the player leaves when dying. It is much more fun for me, when the backstory of my players lives on, even when the char is dead.
Comments have been a lot more negative than I've expected.
No one would you accept that as a limitation of the game/player. Play normally and if the player dies no matter if that was level 1-20, thank them for their time and wish good luck for the next campaign?
My campaigns typically span 3-4 years playing with a fixed group. So, that is almost like, never see you again to that player.
The way you have prosed your questions have been negative, therefore the responses have mimicked the prose.
The implication of both questions to most people here speaks to overall table dynamics. If I'm going to speak beyond the questions of your original post?
For question 1: The DM doesn't give two shits about the players, only the story. That doesn't speak to a very socially friendly environment, which I want to foster far and beyond any tabletop game I'm even entertaining the thought of participating in. I don't play games in groups with people who aren't friends, and because something like this has the potential of excluding someone for weeks, months and potentially years? That isn't good friendship and by association that isn't good tabletop manners.
For question 2 that you prosed, I'd ask them if they'd rather leave, but there are follow up questions based on their response. Why are you looking to play with such limitations on you as a player? Those aren't character limitations they are imposing, but limitations on themselves. Is there something that is leading you to that playstyle? Is something coming up in your life that you know will be a deal breaker later on down the road in terms of attending? Are there table dynamics that we need to revisit?
Neither question to me seems to be in good roleplaying form. Even the most grimdark permadeath campaigns allow for players to come in fresh with a new character provided there isn't a TPK. I can't fathom personally a good social OR story reason why excluding someone from play permanently because their character died, either as a self imposed restriction or a DM imposed restriction.
Thank you! that makes it much clearer.
I think I can see how that might come across to a player as the DM advertised it.
For the second point, I suppose that while we might not be able to fathom a good reason for a player to play this way, doesn't actually mean one doesn't exist.
If it was a one off, the whole thing will be finished in one sitting, then yes that is a fine rule. The player can sit around a comment on the play but must be careful about giving away ideas and influencing play.
the beer and pizza is there, have at it.
As a long campaign no. But you could add in a limit on the level the character could come back as. If the average character level is 5 or less then they come back as a first level character, if the average is 6 through 10 then they come back as a 6th level and so on.
I'd be very curious as to why.
If they're doing it equate they feel that's the consequence of "losing", I'd explain that D&D isn't musical statues. They can just roll up another character and explore that one instead. Or we can introduce a subplot where the party has to go on a quest to resurrect their character. Or something. Why would they feel need to quit the game and not continue to enjoy the game?
I'd be concerned though that it's an attempt to leverage me into protecting their character. "Don't let my character die or I'll stop playing with you". I don’t really have an issue with the principle - I just want them to have fun - but if they're willing to go about it in that way, trying to pressure me rather than just asking, then that doesn't bode well.
If theybreally want to play like that, then that's fine...but I don’t see the benefit in doing so or how it makes things more fun. If they'd rather be DM, or want to learn, then I'm happy to work something out. If they're attached go their character, I'm happy to nudge things so they won't die. But there are more fun things to do than "a bad roll of the dice and I'm not playing anymore". I just want everyone to maximise their fun.
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
I think any idea that puts the campaign/story above the actual people playing the game is going to be received negatively. It's just approaching the game from the wrong perspective, often one of an "armchair DM" who thinks a lot about the game but doesn't actually play it much so they forget to consider the human element.
Stiff death penalties are often imposed as a way to try to force a player to care about their character, which is generally not effective because that's not how caring works.
My homebrew subclasses (full list here)
(Artificer) Swordmage | Glasswright | (Barbarian) Path of the Savage Embrace
(Bard) College of Dance | (Fighter) Warlord | Cannoneer
(Monk) Way of the Elements | (Ranger) Blade Dancer
(Rogue) DaggerMaster | Inquisitor | (Sorcerer) Riftwalker | Spellfist
(Warlock) The Swarm
I mean, if that's how the player plays, I guess them's the breaks? As for the DM dismissing players, I mean, I guess if that's how the DM rolls. I wouldn't expect the player to hang around waiting to get back in and will likely float to another group if they otherwise enjoyed playing.
In TTRPGs with a higher degree of lethality, like Alien, additional NPCs or just backup PCs are often included as part of the team for players to assume control to play out the rest of the adventure.
i think in campaign play, this stuff should be figured out at Session 0 ... though I'd say the conventional practice would be for the DM and player to figure out how to bring that player into the game through a new character.
The exceptions would be in a game, usually a one shot, where there's going to be a "last character standing" or presumed TPK type situation.
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
I think it's a bad idea. D&D is a social game for friends to get together and play. This idea would make a friend leave the activity based on something they may not have control over. If they needed to leave and wanted to go out with a bang, sure, a DM could come up with some suitably heroic death for them, but to make them leave the activity because the dice didn't go their way? Nah, not for me. If a player asked for this restriction for themselves I would think that they didn't want to commit to the group and wanted an out.
Canto alla vita
alla sua bellezza
ad ogni sua ferita
ogni sua carezza!
I sing to life and to its tragic beauty
To pain and to strife, but all that dances through me
The rise and the fall, I've lived through it all!
Over on the Discord there was a rookie DM who tried this on their second game out and it ended disastrously.
Canto alla vita
alla sua bellezza
ad ogni sua ferita
ogni sua carezza!
I sing to life and to its tragic beauty
To pain and to strife, but all that dances through me
The rise and the fall, I've lived through it all!
Why not just keep the same group of players (assuming they're cool enough to keep around), and if ANY character dies (and can't be rez'd), the entire group starts over with a new adventure/campaign.
It keeps the harshness of one and done PCs - which can have it's own downfalls:
What you're trying to accomplish with a one and done concept has nothing to do with punishing players. That's needlessly harsh and really doesn't make sense.
On another (related) note, I play D&D for three main reasons - each given various weight over the 40+ years I've played:
All things Lich - DM tips, tricks, and other creative shenanigans
If I was a DM at the table and the player wanted it, I wouldn't accept the player. I'd feel like I'd either have to pull my punches and/or let them get away with ridiculous shennagains in order to ensure they didn't die... or waste any time in any investment I planned for the character. It would just be a big time sink with no forseeable payoff.
If I was a player and the DM required it, I wouldn't want to play at the table. I'd constantly start getting weirded out and second guessing the DM if I thought we were put in scenarios that the team wasn't ready for... I wouldn't feel comfortable playing such a game.