What moment from D&D history would you like to hear Artivus Gleem's perspective on next time Dscryb sponsors the show? Thanks so much to Dscryb for sponsoring this video! Visit dscryb.com/supergeek and use the term SUPERGEEK at checkout to get 10% off of your first subscription payment. dscryb.com/supergeek
@@alexlittle92 i have never had a character die. It doesn't help that i tend to make support/tank (easier to justify "powergaming" when it doesn't screw with the party)
I was the proverbial red shirt for the first gaming group I played in a long time ago. Character death was part of the game, but I was dying every session. I almost quit after I died one more time….. but when the character died it wasn’t because of a stupid mistake….. It was a choice that I made to save the group Paladin so the group would survive. At the end of the session, instead of burying my dead character in a shallow grave they returned his body to his family because of his sacrifice. There they met his cousin, my back up character number 7. He was the third ranger I had ever played. After he joined the group he survived the rest of the campaign. He is the basis for how I play rangers to this day.
@@SupergeekMike I was new and didn’t know anything, what changed was how that character death was handled and then the group took the time to really explain the mechanics. They had been playing together for a year and figured I was going to be a part time/no time player. When I sacrificed the character to save the Paladin vs my normal rush head first strategy, they saw I was trying to help vs be “the guy”. Those guys ended up being some of my closest friends I’ve ever had. Miss those guys.
The story about Bup-Bup was amazing. I'm playing Ireena in my husband's curse of strahd game right now actually. I don't know anything Ireena doesn't know, so it's pretty exciting to slowly peel back the layers. As for players who are only interested in playing their one character, I think that's valid. I'm running a campaign for my brother and his friends, people I don't know well. In session zero I said I'm not planning a deadly campaign, but character death might happen and to have a backup character idea. I feel like stuff like this is perfect for session zero.
Tangentially related, I also wish that death wasn't the only way most group swap characters; I've had a couple characters where I would have been pretty happy retiring them after they got enough money to open that potions shop they dreamed of/reunited with their lost sibling/what have you, or even temporary retire a character while they go on a solo adventure off screen and come in with a temp until the character returns
I have switched characters like 2 times, first was the original wasn't making me enjoy the game so I changed, the second was I left my character to do something while I play as one of the NPCs (which I help make) for awhile. It's all cool to have a moment where you switch people out or play something else for like 12 sessions
As a (3.5) GM I absolutely allow characters to retire, for any reasonably valid character or player reason. It doesn't happen often, but sometimes a character concept isn't working out, or doesn't mesh well with the party dynamic, and I see no reason a player should be required to keep playing a character they aren't enjoying. In one case, a character was reincarnated, and the player wasn't a fan of the race they ended up; they continued playing the character until the conclusion of the quest they were in the middle of, but then bowed out as they reasoned the character needed to spend time figuringbout who they were in their new body. Their next character was quite different and they enjoyed playing a lot more. In another instance, a character had been energy drained and ended up lower level. The player decided that the event traumatised the character so much that they were now afraid to go adventuring. No problem - new character time! One of the things I do as a GM is specify the available races and classes for starting characters, for each of my homebrew campaigns, based on the flavor I have chosen for the setting - primarily so that I don't have a primary culture that everyone is assumed to be familiar with only to end up with every character being some exotic race and/or class from somewhere else. But if someone has a character die, or retires a character, I open up the possibilities for their replacement character, and will work with the player to provide a way to incorporate a more exotic character into the setting if they pick something not already incorporated.
I agree: communication about expectations is key. I played in a game where someone's character died, and the party did a hard pivot from quest completion to "New quest! Bring character back to life!" The DM went along with it, drafting up a temp-PC for the characterless player to play (with knowledge of how/where to get items and a caster for the ritual, since we were too low-level to do it ourselves). Everyone went into the new quest with two expectations: first, that the party would eventually succeed in bringing the character back to life, and second, that the original quest would be harder when we picked it up again because we'd let time lapse. Both of these came to pass, but everyone was happy about it because we knew what we were getting into. As an aside, at the height of the resurrection quest, when we'd retrieved most of the materials and paid the caster, one of our other party members almost died (rolled a 1 on a death save when no one else was nearby: much panic over the next "six seconds"). After that combat, one of the party members asked the caster, "So like, just for future reference, can you do a two-for-one deal, or...?"
The story of that barbarian revenant in the Curse of Strahd game is amazing. :D I legit got chills when you said the line! And pulling off a twist like that with a character named "Bup-Bup" is a pure power move. XD That player was mad stylin' on y'all.
@@SupergeekMike if you still know/are on good terms with that person, you oughta let 'em know their storytelling has affected people on the internet :D
I mostly fall somewhere in the middle. I don't want my character to die but if I think that there's something to add to the story with that death then I'm willing to lean into it. I love storytelling but I do want to have at least the choice of continuing playing as the character. Again, it depends what the DM has in mind. Idk if this is the normal mindset, I definitely love creating new characters. Fun fact - When I started my job, for the first three weeks my stress coping mechanism was making DnD character sheets (most of them are 3rd level except for two). I made 15 full character sheets.
I agree. I have character ideas and I love my group, but unless I play a knowingly death heavy game. I don't expect or want to die. Like I invest myself heavily into my character and them dying feel like a baby I have get killed and I got to just move on. I'm for it if I know the risks, like a big final fight with Strahd, but not in the middle of a dungeon st level 6.
I totally sympathize with this mindset, Even with a group that plays all the time and plays other things together. I play roleplaying games. I am the exact demographic that should always want to make a new character. Look, I do make a new character if it happens. I set aside my wishes and do it because I want to play the game with my friends. But the fact remains that I have to set that instinct aside; my first thought is closer to kind of...not wanting to. When I play a long-term game, with a ton of backstory weaving, character development, and heavy roleplay emphasis, that character becomes an interictal part of the story. Especially if it's been years in the making. Another character really doesn't feel the same in that moment. A new character feels awkward and focused. Even when we fake it, there is no natural bond. It doesn't feel right and it sucks a lot of the fun out for me. These are the types of games I play, and this is probably why death is actually very rare. In fact, that's something we struggle with a bit, where we have a bit too much plot armor. We haven't perfected the balance yet. I do wish I had a good answer for this because man. Sometimes its really hard to come back from those moments.
I try to seed some options with the DM ahead of time, keep concepts in reserve, and usually ask for time before I return but it is still a challenge. I think one of the most effective ways to make it work is for the death in the campaign to have weight and meaning for the party, perhaps change their direction. That is rare, but it seems to help the affected player grieve and feel like their death was narratively valuable, even heroic.
I am with you on this. Creating a new character isn't the end of the world, but it sure takes a lot of fun out of the game for me. At least for a couple of sessions. As you said, having to introduced and integrate a new person into an already established group is awkward. And it's definitly my least favourite part of the game, possibly because I do lack the ability to easily connect with people in real live too. On top of that I do put a lot of thought and emotion into my characters and it hurts to loose a character. I build my characters to explore certain experiences. If I create an emotionally closed of character and I want to take them through the process of learning to open up and that character dies before that can happen, I loose one of my main motivations for playing. Sure I could make a new character who starts where the old one died, but where is the point in letting the first character die if I am going to create a carbon copy of them anyway? It also makes a situation that already feels forced and unnatural feel even more so. I'd much rather take ridiculously heavy plot armor, than create a new character. Fortunetly I haven't had to find out how ridiculous the plot armor can get before it defeats the point of not breaking the story, yet.
It's why, as a dm myself, only levels 2-4 have any real risk of death (i usually don't dm any higher than lvl 8 or 9 tho, a thing i'm working on changing). My players don't know this tho, but accidents happen. I generally try to introduce them to an NPC they can befriend once they get past those earlier lvls to help the subtle plot armor set it (typically a reincarnate, so there's a least some consequence). And it doesn't feel quite so much like plot armor because it was there along and not an option that appeared the second they needed it. The balance is really hard tho, but it's worth noting death isn't the only threat you can give your players. I'm generally very against killing characters of any sort because it means their story ends there. Finished or unfinished, the act itself is always unsatisfying to me and most of the people I play with (unless they approach me for it first). The aftermath is where the good bits come in. That being said, your party can't be everywhere at once. Sure they'll pretty much always succeed at whichever thing they run off to do, but if xyz all require their attention; they're gonna have to make some decisions. It works to also encourage the party to reach out to the NPCs they've met along they way. For example, one of the NPCs my party met is currently got a broken wing and being held hostage in a bandit camp in an incredibly dangerous forest with no means of escaping. A nice sending spell helped the party realize this, and being inadvertently responsible for the situation she's in; they really want to go rescue her. *But* one of the PCs has currently got their life on a timer under threat from a Sapphire Dragon (long story). They don't have time to go help her, so with good old sending, they contacted a different nearby NPC (that their p close friends with) to go and try to rescue her. Now that NPC has a chance of failing, and if he does, the party has to deal with the consequences of that. TLDR: Don't just kill PCs to make them feel like there's consequences, cause them emotional damage instead ;) Edit: Grammar
I get very attached to my character. But I also make a dozen backups for every long campaign I play in. Then I fall in love with the backups and lament that they'll never get used.
The most valuable thing I learned from DnD is that getting attached is great, but never let the attachment hinder you. The ability to let go is profoundly cathartic, in DnD and outside it. I love my characters, and yet, at each death I'll greet it with a smile. Some choose to view it as a new beginning, but I see it as no different than walking. You do it, and it should be easy the more you do.
It felt really weird to me listening to this because I feel like there was a massive, glaring omission and the only time it was touched on was almost derisive. The fact of the matter is that players often get very, very emotionally invested in their characters. Even when I'm not playing, I frequently spend a lot of time planning how they will develop both mechanically and socially - what directions I want to take them and what stories I want to tell with them. In a setting where death is final, where dying means that all of that anticipation, hope, expectation is just gone - that can be pretty hollowing. I don't think it fair to chalk that up to just anger or rage quitting if someone who goes through that finds it hard to pick up the pieces and reinvest that same level of emotional energy into a new character and in so doing make themselves vulnerable to going through the same experience a second time. And I do think a lot of that comes down to expectation and communication - what players are at the table for in the first place. A significant number of people I've played with over the years aren't there to tell the high drama epic tale, they are there for functionally escapism. They're looking for a world where they can feel like they are heroic, like they matter, when so often the real world tells us we don't - and for a lot of those players who live vicariously through their characters, the sentiment that your character is disposable, replaceable, and bound to the service of the narrative is really, really off-putting. Much less holding the game hostage, it feels very entitled to me that you have the expectation that someone will, someone must, make a new character to keep the game going if that no longer appeals to them. In the games I am active in right now - I genuinely don't know if I would, or could, bring myself to replace a dead character. Fortunately, in all but one I can't imagine a circumstance where a dead PC couldn't be brought back, so I really don't have to for the most part. Either way though, I don't think it fair to expect people spend their leisure and relaxation time to uphold your fun when doing so is stressful, painful, or even simply uninteresting to them and the idea the show must go on whether they like it or not seems really toxic.
It’s an understandable position, it’s just very much outside the norm and would need to be clearly communicated up front. I’ve never heard someone take this stance. If that’s the level of attachment you have to your character, something like Dungeon World (or some other narrative style game where character death only happens when it fits the shared narrative) might be better than D&D where character death can happen just due to bad luck. Not because D&D can’t accommodate this, but just because of the shared expectations the different systems generally have.
@@johnathanrhoades7751 I don't think it is as rare as you think it is. If you look through the comments of this video, there are tons of people who talk about getting attached to their characters and it isn't like the comment sample size is enormous either. I'd caution about your experiences be taken as representative of the entire hobby as every table is different, every group of players is different, hell, every campaign is different. Even two different characters in the same campaign can be different affecting - the one I am most attached to of mine is themselves a replacement character for one I voluntarily retired earlier in the campaign. Attachment isn't always something you can plan for, sometimes it just grows out of great story and great RP. I likewise agree setting expectations at the beginning is important and part of that is choosing a system that meets the expectations of the table. At the same time, expectations and interests can change over very long campaigns to a point where changing systems may no longer be practical and so communicating with the table and being flexible in the system you have is important for long campaigns too.
There is a bit of a difference, to your character dying, you spending some time thinking about it, and going, "I was too attached to that character in that story to want to make a new one, if there isn't a revival opportunity I'm going to step out of the game" and seeing the game master getting ready to hit you when you're low on health and telling him that if he kills your character you are done, which is the situation he mentioned derisively, the first is respectfully stepping out of the game, and the second one is trying to hold the game master's actions hostage, through telling them you won't hang out anymore, and potentially throwing off the groups balance. You have a lot of valid points here, But I don't think the derisiveness was directed at the situation you are talking about, and I don't necessarily think its toxic for people to assume someone will make a replacement character when their first dies, or to try to convince their friend that they have more fun at the table when their friend is playing with them, it definitely can turn toxic if the conversation goes to places that are disrespectful, but that's a different situation entirely. as for personal attachment causing you to drop out of a campaign, my first game, I was very attached to the character I was playing, who was a bit tailor made to the adventure we were running, which was an evil campaign where we were trying to stamp down a rebellion, and 2 of other players decided they were annoyed and done with what we had been doing, and wanted to take their characters to a different adventure, 3 or 4 options were brought up, and 1 of those was something that my character would basically never agree to, and I pointed at that one in particular and said that I was okay with all of them except for that one, if that was the one that got picked by everyone else, I'd leave the game because my character wouldn't go in that direction, and I didn't really want to make a new one because 1-2 other people wanted to swap entire games when I was enjoying the original, they discounted the other games from the list because they weren't interested, and I stepped out of the game. I'm still a bit salty because 2 people derailed an entire game that the other 3 were still having fun with, and wanted me to completely change the character I was most interested in playing at a drop of a hat instead of moving to a game where he fit better than the one they were proposing.
@@Arcon1ous Most of the video the discussion about not continuing are things like 'my new character wouldn't be as invested in the story', 'I don't know if D&D is right for me', 'I don't think I can do better than the character I just played,'. Skimming the video again, the one point of the discussion that gets involved with the emotion of character death lasts for about two sentences. It is just before the 12 minute mark where it is mentioned that someone might be so angry with their character death they rage quit the campaign. He does mentioned that this is stigmatized, but rather than take an opportunity to call that out - open the very valid discussion about player emotion over character losses (not even necessarily just PC death), he just rolls on with implied acceptance that of course anger over character death isn't legitimate. Nothing is said at all of being hurt by it. That is what I referred to as derisive, this idea that emotions felt in the event of a death are invalid. And I don't disagree it isn't toxic to try and convince someone to stay, or to communicate you find the table more fun with them. My point was it becomes toxic when there is a social expectation that they will remain at the table past the point the game is fun for them. If my fun is being had at the expense of making someone else commit hours a week of their leisure time to something they don't enjoy, that's a problem and well past the point of being reasonable.
@@johnathanrhoades7751 While that's definitely true of _some_ narrative games (And some games that aren't really narrative - Fabula Ultima, for example, has if you drop to 0hp you get to choose if you die (in which case your character does something cool in a moment of self sacrifice, either advancing the party's aims or doing a significant chunk of damage to the villain in a combat) or not (in which case there will be negative narrative consequences, but your character will survive), I remain surprised to see this coming up as something common to them, since most PbtA - the most prominent example of narrative games and the cluster from which Dungeon World comes from - I've read and played have character death that the players can't really avoid if they don't want it. In some cases, inevitable character death if you keep playing the campaign long enough. For a couple of PbtA examples, in Monster of the Week your characters are going to burn through their luck points and when that happens their death is only a matter of time. Escape from Dino Island is extremely deadly - It's pretty much a 2hp game (just the hit points are called wounds and have more of a narrative consequence for taking them) and once you hit 0, your character dies. (sort of. It theoretically has the option to not die if you take the casualty move, but your character is effectively dead if you take that option; you're still making a new character, that character's still unconscious and unable to operate, just... If you take that option _and_ the rest of the party gets your character off of the island they'll recover) I can't speak for Dungeon World, I've not read it, but 'you only die if you decide your character should die' is just not something I inherently associate with that style of play.
I've been a fan of Colville for a long time now, and I am continually surprised at the things he has never before encountered in his long career of DMing. I've only been Dming for a little under 10 years, and I've checked tons of those things off. Goes to show every crowd and table are different.
There was a campaign (not D&D, but irrelevant to the story) where my character died in a fairly unsatisfying way. I tried to make a replacement character, but the replacement wasn't fun to play and wasn't gelling with the group, so I talked to my DM about ways to bring the previous character back in some way. He seemed pretty on board with the idea at first, we even worked out a custom ghost template that we agreed wasn't too OP, and then right before the session where I was to be reintroduced he abruptly changed his mind. I quit the campaign on the spot.
I haven't personally encountered this mentality in any games that I've run, but this is an interesting topic and has got me thinking about how I'd handle this if it came up in one of my games. It really sounds like the main issue is a misalignment of the expectations between the DM and the player. Like your story with Bup-Bup, I think as long as this was discussed and organised with the DM in session 0, or talked about privately early on in the campaign, then this really wouldn't be an issue. However, I think it does become an issue if that sort of discussion never happened, and the player just drops this on the DM mid-game as soon as they encounter a challenging/dangerous situation. Depending on the group, this can put the DM into a bit of an awkward situation where they may feel that they need to give the player character a bit of plot armour so they don't lose the player. Losing a player can cause a whole range of issues if you're not prepared for it as DM, and especially if you don't game with a lot of players. For example, if you have 4 players, and 1 player is a bit flakey, you can still run the game with 3 people, but if one of the reliable players just entirely drops out because their character died, you might get into a situation where the game needs to be postponed due to wanting at least 3 players present, or you might need to start looking for a replacement player which can change the entire group dynamic. In the worst case scenario, this can even cause a campaign to just die off from scheduling issues. So, I think it's important for players to understand that depending on the size of their group, their very presence can make or break the group. I also think the intent of the player is key if this comes up. There's obviously a big difference between someone wanting to come into a game just to add their own story element, then leave once that's done (like the Bup-Bup story), as opposed to someone trying to manipulate the DM into giving their character plot armour or an edge over the other players. A player just stating mid-game "If my character dies, I'm leaving the game" can often be taken by the DM and other players as the later. At the end of the day, like Mike said, this can all be cleared up by having an adult discussion between the DM and players to get everyone on the same page.
I honestly don’t know what I would do if my character dies, I just have the “I’ll deal with it if it happens” mindset and hope it doesn’t happen. Worked for me so far
You definitely made a lot of good points that I'm going to try and keep in mind whenever I finally get around to DMing my own campaign. I think as long as they're not saying it to try and hold the campaign hostage it should be just fine if someone wants to just make the one character. I do agree that having it be a session 0 question be important as it can allow for the player and the DM to have a conversation about maybe why the player is feeling that way and how to go forward in a way that works for everyone.
I think that for context, Matt Colville had made it clear in prior videos that he had multiple campaigns going at Turtle Rock and it sounded like he culled a few players in order to merge the groups. While he doesn't state it in the Campaign Diary Mike refers to, that likely influenced Matt's reaction to the player. He probably felt as though he had told other friends they could not play in his game and then another person he thought was a friend wasn't respecting that sacrifice that had been made so that they had a seat at the table.
I've only started playing TTRPGs in the last year or so. And I completely understand this attitude - it's something I might have to work through once my first character dies. I'm a big video game fan, and for me, having my character dying half way through a campaign would be like Commander Shepard dying on Mars after escaping Earth. All the emotional investment, all the obstacles that were overcome, and the friends made, and the mysteries unraveled would be for nought. And I feel like if I'm doing my job correctly, and the GM is doing their job correctly, it *should* be difficult to move on from a character.
Part of me almost is curious about a campaign where you start with the maximum number of players the DM is comfortable running a game for, and when they die, they die. I think it would make for a much more gripping story and make players fear going down in battle more if when they die, they stop playing. In practice I think it would create overly cautious players who take 4 sessions to pass through a dungeon, or would be over too fast with a TPK.
Really interesting topic today, Mike! I can imagine getting super attached to my character and playing on without them my be hard for me. I don’t know for sure because that hasn’t happened, but it’s interesting to think about.
I know for me, I het more attached to the story than the character, so like, if my character dies, then, well, that's cool! They had a good run! A lot of times, I'll do something like pick an npc that was close to the party or work with the DM about being a random villager or something thats in the area the players will be at the start of next game and just make up a reason to want to join. With my current alchemist, if she dies, my plan is to make her homunculus familiar into the new character, basically using it as an extra life. She did make the familiar from her own blood, in her own image, to be able to learn more about her strange anatomy bestowed through celestial lineage after all
I’m new to dnd and I love my dex based gnome paladin. We have killed a dragon and pulled my team back from the brink of a TPK together. I was crushed when we faced that TPK and the horror of loosing Kelvin, but I and everybody else at the table started talking about backup characters and what stats we would change. I still would feel horrible if I lost Kelvin, he is my first character after all, but I also am “dying” to try another class and eagerly look forward to when I can!
Really interesting topic today! I haven't had that happen when DMing, but I would hope I wouldn't take it personally. I actually felt that way, though ultimately created a new character for the campaign. For me, my character died in the later stages of the campaign. We were at higher levels, 15 I think, and when my character died, I just felt done. Like I said, I got back into the game with a new character, but it just didn't feel right. I think going forward, I might even make that intention clear: I die after a long time with one character, I'm out.
I think it's worth at least considering whether there's room to set up an alternative for yourself. If you know that it would be hard for you to pick up with a character who hasn't had any opportunity to become invested in the group, that's a thing you can prepare for. You can do something like create a backup who exists in the world as an ally to the party who doesn't (yet) participate in their active adventuring, but does some other useful things for them in the background, which allows for laying some groundwork that makes it feel like there's a natural opportunity for this person to step in when the party suffers a loss.
Yeah, I'm currently playing in a campaign that's two and a half years old, and my character is level 17. Normally, I'm pretty cool with rerolling if my character dies, but I think despite being okay with this character dying, I think I'd find it hard to feel invested in a new character if this one died permanently after so long engaging with this particular narrative with this particular character. I think I'd probably ultimately reroll as well, but I think the adjustment period would take a while.
I think everything around character death needs to be discussed in Session Zero or prior to joining a game. Any version of the situation is valid as long as everyone is aware of what everyone else's limits and expectations are. For example, in my 5e game, I made it clear I wasn't okay with my character dying before the end of the story. The GM was absolutely free to tell me no, and then I wouldn't have joined. It's that simple. I'm not okay with getting attached to a character the way I inevitably will with a DnD campaign and then having them die to something unimportant or inconsequential halfway through. It would feel wasteful and hollow and like I'd wasted my time for months or years only to fill in that space with useless nonsense in a new character. But I discussed this, up front, with the DM and most of the other players felt the same way about it. We were simply a group for which permanent character death was not on the table, and at worst our characters would be out of commission for a while until we could get them revived and it would cost us resources and possibly social capital in our in-world universe. That worked for us. I totally get why it doesn't work for some other tables, but that's the beauty of this game- every table gets to decide what is right for their table. I also don't feel that being upset about the circumstances of a character death is necessarily rage quitting, holding a game hostage, or being spoiled or whiny. People get attached to characters, and the emotional input in a DnD game shouldn't be overlooked. A lot of people put something of themselves into their characters, and it's not always easy to just let it go and make a new character. If I feel like crying every time I have to show up to session because I'm playing some sad replacement character instead of the one that I cared about and was interested in, that isn't going to be fun for me or for anyone else. Lastly, if a campaign can't go on without any single player... that's a problem with the campaign, IMO. If a character died and the player chooses not to roll a new one, why can't you just get a new player? Plenty of people are willing to join after the fact (I was one of them...) and if it's a new character anyway, it shouldn't matter if the player is new as well or not. Honestly, insistence that players roll new characters when they're killed feels a lot more like being spoiled and whiny than the other way around, to me. They are choosing their own level of engagement that they feel comfortable with, and the DM is imposing guilt tripping and "well it's for everyone else" on them unfairly. Again, it's easily avoidable if the concept of character death is discussed and mutually agreed upon when you start or join a new campaign.
i said something along the lines of "if my character dies, I'm done playing" once, though it wasn't out of spite or any kind of ultimatum. The group is just really big, and i wanted to leave room for the other players if things came to it. Figured I'd come back in when the next campaign started. Didn't come to that though, pretty sure the whole idea was swiftly forgotten about a session or two later.
A friend of mine came up with an injury system so that you take a penalty and a permanent injury if you fail your death saves. That way your character and the story you want to tell with them doesn't go out the window while still punishing you for dying. As someone who does not play DND for the combat, but the roleplay (because it's the only roleplay game my friends play that's not a video game with set characters and more finite options), losing the character I actually have motivation to act as and see a character arc through to the end with, is much, much more crippling to me.
I think your points make sense, especially in the context of a player whose participation in the game is clearly provisional anyway in a "I'm trying this out; I'll quit if I'm miserable." sense. I think a thing you should have touched on, though (for the sake of potential viewers who might need to understand why someone might be annoyed with the idea of summarily quitting), is that the size and composition of the group can be very important to the experience of all the players. It's inconsiderate to start something that you don't feel at all committed to finishing without at least communicating that fact clearly to the rest of the group so that they have a fair opportunity to say "Okay, that's your right, but in that case I would prefer not to reserve a seat for you at our table when we could find someone who wants to play out the entire campaign instead."
Long time Call of Cthulhu player. My characters in all games now keep journals and notes, and have an heir roughly drafted to inherit both the notes and the now-dead character's obligations and debts as well as their remaining wealth. Be ready for character death by creating a backup character who has reason to quickly become invested.
ngl there have been times that when my character has died, ive stopped playing in that game, it just didnt make any sense to bring in a new pc at that point of the story being so far in, it wasent malicious or anything it's just what was best for everyone at the table.
The idea that 'oh bad luck, you rolled a 5% chance' just ended the story you've been working on for decades meant that we wanted a system that stopped one of the weakness we saw in D&D (from the '70's until now). In my long-term gaming group we have a fate-point system where you can spend points based on a multiplier of how many times 'fate' has interposed before (points earned by attending sessions and awarded each month). The campaign has been persistent now for over 30 years. There are whole stables of characters for each player that exist in this version of Greyhawk and multiple DM's. It works for us, and still adds a level of danger and investment as time passes and certain, more chaotic, characters reach points where they cannot be saved. It should also be noted that resurrection mechanics are massively nerfed in our world and raising the dead has required massive, month-long campaigns to even attempt.
We just made sure the Rod of Resurrection started with 50 charges and reworked the rod so it was one charge per death. For those who don't have 1E DMG handy I think It was 1 charge for Heal spell and 5 charges for Resurrection. And I think an elf required more charges.
My sister said she would quit the campaign if her character died, and she said that specifically to hold the campaign hostage. Given that, when we started a new game, we...forgot to tell her about it.
Who only plays with just friends? I have played with spouses, snuggle bunnies, freaky friends of friends, and a brother. Now since I am now Adventure League, PC dying is not a rare occurrence. But walking when a PC dies, is a session 0 discussion.
I did this once, but mostly because I was not enjoying the campaign at all. My character died, and I was like, yeah, I think I'm just going to head out.
I've also been thinking about how I'd introduce a new character if my current were to die and it seems rather difficult to me. I mean sure we could just hand-wave something in, but then the character wouldn't really be as invested as the old one. This isn't to say I'd quit my campaign if my character died, just that I can understand that it might feel like your new character doesn't fit. I get how unsatisfying it could seem for your character to just be so easily replaced.
I think that there is some stigma around the players that only want to play ONE character. Mind you, i am SURE that there are people that do this just to stomp feet and be mad at everybody else in the team. But we really need to stop putting the "blame" on the people with such mentality of "if i die, I'll stop playing". There are other ways to make it so that said character don't die but still have a big set back for "dying". Hell, the GM is quite literally GOD. If god wants he can take pity on someone and revive them for no specific reason whatsoever! Is it ""stupid""? Maybe. Does it make everyone happy at the table? Yes.
I will say there has been one character that meant a lot to me on a personal level, and had she died, I wouldn't have been able to experience that partiular setting as a player on a different character - I'd still have attended the sessions to hang out and root for the party, but not as an active player. Other campaigns or settings, who cares... tbh there are games where it's a given that you will die a lot, like Call of Cthulhu or Paranoia. I don't love the style, but I run with it when we play those games.
I remember one of my first D&D characters I had and had developed so much over the years. There were always chances he could die and my partner (who was/is my DM) had been told, if he dies, I'm taking time off before coming back. Just to go through the 'grieving' process of someone I played for years suddenly being gone. I think if a player wants to step away from the game because of a character death, that's fine. As a player I'd be cautious about them wanting to return further down the line if it was more of a flouncing away reaction or a threat.
I can see myself quiting if I'm already on the fence for other reasons, like time constraints, burnout, or not really liking the campaign or the other players that much, or if the character dies because of something outside of my reasonable control. And I expect the same from my players when I'm the dm. It's supose to be fun, not a chore.
Just had a really long conversation yesterday with my DM about character death. I am very attatched to my current character, and even if I do have at least 4 other characters waiting in the back "just in case", I would be very dissapointed if my sweet baby boy Deryl had an early and not satisfying death. I play to have my characters live a story. If I don't feel like it's what they were given, it takes away my fun. I am very grateful for my DM who heard me and took the decision to just ask. If my character goes down or if he does die, I'd still have the possibility of keep playing with him. It does mean that the death would change something (coming back as an undead or with a level in warlock for having made a pact with a demon or something), oherwise it wouldn't be meaningful. But it also means that I get to say goodbye and start again with a new character when I feel ready.
Honestly I’m kind of terrified right now because as much as I don’t really *want* to be “that player” like in Matt Colville’s group and don’t want to say so to my DM… the game we’re trying to set up right now has got me so invested in this one character that I have trouble believing I’d really be able to enjoy the game anymore at all if my character ends up dying (permanently) in anything less than a TPK situation when the game would end anyway. I really feel like… yeah, if my character dies, then that’ll just be game over for me, and I won’t really be able to roll a new character and keep playing, even if I try to, because I’m just not going to be able to care about the new character or get the character to care about the game like the first one did. It’s a distinct possibility that my character very easily *could* die, too, because we’re trying to make a Matt Mercer module that was written for 5 players work for a party of 3, and I don’t think we’re really going to be doing the best job of hitting that healer/tank/DPS trifecta we were hoping would compensate. Hopefully the DM does a good job of rebalancing encounters or loot or something. I will note that if this campaign actually gets off the ground, it’ll be the first time I’ve actually gotten to play in a proper game instead of one that dies after 1-3 sessions, so… I am still a very new player since I’ve just never really been able to play beyond level 1. >.> still, it’s a genuine concern for me.
Thank you for these videos. You spark thoughts in my head that help me nale down how I want to run things and how to talk to my players about said thoughts.
oo i like the story of bup bup, that actually gives me a really good idea bc one of my players only has 2 sessions with us scheduled before she moves across the country, might snag some of those story beats to give her character a satisfying end!
My take on it is that it should always be something you can and should discuss with your players/DM when it comes up. No matter if you are a lifelong D&D player, new to the hobby or just doing it because you got invited, if the idea of death to your character is not a fun look to you it should be fine. With this I mean multiple things: Either all the players and DM just accept that that is an end point for the player or they agree that the player in question sometimes just get exempt from the death status. Sure, this would mean other rules should be put in place to make it fun and fair for everyone, but this is D&D we are talking about. One of the most mod-able games I have ever seen in my life! Death to them could instead become a penalty, be it short or long term. It could also be that the only thing that happens is them not being able to participate in the moment where they died. No matter what, I think excluding players with a different mindset on this topic is never a good thing to do.
Hmm I’ll be honest, I am not ready to stop playing the character I have now, however I was warned from session 0 to have backup characters ready. This is because the module I play in is quite dangerous and frankly, I’ve been damn lucky so far to only have had ONE time I went unconscious and was revived not long after. I did make up backup characters though. In fact, my back up character is a sibling of the one I play now. I actually have three set up this way and two of which would be his parents. And they are already written in to some degree because I have brought up their existence before when discussing my backstory in game. A few characteristics have even been dropped in to the story this way too as my current character shares childhood stories. So I am actually building up the history of my backup characters while I play my current one. That doesn’t mean I’m setting up my character to die, I really love playing him and am not ready to put him down yet, but it does mean I’m going to prepare myself and my group, and the story, to have these backup characters transition in as smoothly as I can manage.
This seems to be related to a take I have on lethality in general. I think lethality can be a pretty boring excuse for "consequences". Agreeing that the characters won't die isn't necessarily consequence free as some people seem to say, it's just that you have to put those consequences in another way. Example: If you "die" on a quest to stop an Orcus Cult from doing cultish culty things, you can reflavor that as "the character/party is defeated, and the Orcus cult does the culty thing". Now you're character actually has to deal with the result of their own failings. Friends/Compatriates may die. Worse, they may live and lose faith or trust in the PCs. In a way, when I hear people suggest that (PC) lethality is necessary for consequences, I think the only result they will see are ones in which the PCs are almost completely successful on a large scale, and that feels consequence free to me. This video, and takes like what considering what death ought to mean are why lethality is a pretty rich discussion for part of session 0 (or an alert for player buy in to a particular campaign).
Personally I do not want my character to die and reach level 20. My inspiration for characters comes in spurts and I typically will only flesh out the type of character and concept that I feel particularly passionate about. So a combination of playing smart and not having a lot of friends who make decent DM's or players for me to interact with becomes an enormous barrier.
Honestly I thought, until recently, that this was just how people played D&D. I've never had the opportunity to be in a proper campaign before - for context.
I had a PC die in my current campaign. Even if they were high enough level to bring them back, the character was killed by a vampire who absconded with a vampire, so… yeah, that’s not an option. He had already told me about some backup character concepts he’d been working on so we knew what his next character was going to be before the session ended. But there was still a moment of panic, I won’t deny it.
I had a character die once. It was upsetting, but I did keep playing. Just with a new character. It was a TPK, and afterwards the DM started a new game in a new world, so I just made a new character for it. I also have a different character lined up in this world that fits the first character's faction, in case this next one dies too. In case anyone was wondering, the TPK happened because of several mistakes piling up, and the group failed to survive an ensuing ambush.
Personally I like overstaffed campaigns that take the the dead for the arc, then choose, approach. Gives people time to think about whether they want to rejoin and time to plan an entry they'll be happier with than just walking out of the respawn closet. Plus with a couple extra players means you can afford to have people hang out on the bench for a session or three or even indefinitely without the group being rendered non-functional.
One time I quit campaign unprompted was after DM asked OTHER PLAYERS, wile I coul;d hear it, mind you, if they would like him to turn my character into Dragonborn.
i had a curse of strahd game where there were multiple deaths with one new character and another resurrected somehow, but one player was killed in a combat encounter and the player just left the session ended mid encounter and then all the other players of the group except me decided to not play that campaign anymore im still bitter on that since im bad at role play but at that point i had started to get a feel for combat and such and then the game is shut down mid fight
I think there are many reasons to quit when your character dies, for me last time I wanted to do it, it was because I ran out of inspiration, I was satisfied with the story my characters had told (I had already died once in the campaign, this was the second time I died) and I felt like I wouldn't be able to connect with the game if I did, and well my friends convinced me to play another character and I honestly regret it, it was by far the worst time I've ever had playing an RPG, my character fell flat and uninspired (This was in part fault of the DM who kinda kept giving my character things I didn't care about at all in an effort to include the character, by stuff I don't mean loot I mean story hooks and connections), I was so bored during that whole game to the point that I still have no idea how that campaign ended despite the fact that I was there, so I think that sometimes it's just better to quit, I think it's not good to play if you aren't enjoying the game. And while I get why the DM was like that in giving me the hooks and stuff, which is because I tend to be very engaged with the story and the world putting a lot of effort into the narrative, I think it's important to respect what the player asks for, I said very clearly that I didn't feel like putting the emotional investment in connecting with the story a third time so I was just supposed to be like a minor comic relief companion that travelled with the party but wasn't going to be a main player when it came to influencing the world, because I had put a lot of work into my previous two characters and while I can do that without putting that much work it kinda made the other 2 characters that I really loved feel lesser, like they were forgotten and replaced quickly, besides I wanted to try something new, I was always the serious idealist character that genuinely put an effort into doing stuff, doing something more laid back was supposed to be a nice change of pace, instead it became a chore as a character that was supposed to just be silly had to deal with serious stuff while I was not engaged to put in the effort to do that.
when a character of mine dies and they arent coming back i definitely take a few weeks off. I dont exactly *want* a new character. i dont want to make a new build, come up with a new name. even with my friends, if my character dies, i do not want to play a new character. i will, but it will not be as fun. i built this character flr the campaign. if they die that characters story is over, and any character i make later will be disconnected from the story, and i will care about them far far less, especially if since i have to make a new build and start without any of my magic items. If my wizard dies, creating a new wizard just feels like a replacement, so i cant go with a new wizard. but that means i have to look through all the subclasses again, play a different class, most likely homebrew my own subclass because i find 90% of them boring and unappealing, the. build that character up to the right level (skipping all of the learning curve of trying a new class and build, and playing something that i may not wind up enjoying). Making new dnd characters is hard as hell, especially for someone with mental illness. i would not be surprised or upset if a player decided to sit out the rest of the campaign after their character died and couldn't be resurrected.
I think this is an extreme reaction to something that is why I am so averse the high difficulty. For me it takes between three and twelve sessions depending on the game to get back to the point where i'm having fun in a d n d game. More to the point unless I made a stupid player mistake that I should have known based on my information and understanding the trust is broken. The question occurs to me why should I spend months rebuilding before I start having fun again Is with the serious risk of it happening again?
As part of session 0, I have my players take a short campaign interest/boundaries survey (which can obviously be way excessive for some groups, but that's just he vehicle this is coming to them through) and one section of the survey is just a series of yes or no statements on lethality within the game. The three that relates directly to the player's character are basically that their character falls unconscious in a dangerous situation but doesn't actually risk dying, their character may die in a dangerous situation but could be brought back with some form of help, and my character may die but I can make a new character to replace them. These are each set up so that someone could check yes to all three to say whatever happens happens, and I've had some players to obviously want to feel like death is always a risk and so check no on the first one. I'm not sure where the kind of player preference described in the video would fit in these, although I will say with a lot of new players this is generally what I hear from them, especially for their first character. Still, figured I'd share in case anyone was interested in incorporating discussions of lethality into their session 0s or games in general. 🙂
I agree fully in this outlook, and it's good for that epic ending that can differ than just defeating the big bad. When it's from that new player side, and the player that just, ends when it ends and doesn't want to rejoin midway, that's cool. But if it's a sentence used as an ultimatum against the DM or sometimes even, the rest of the group; then I disagree.
One of my groups is basically family, so yeah, we get together to play MtG or board games when we’re missing too many people to play D&D. I think there are lots of reasonable reasons to hold this view, but one to be careful about is when it is because a player is too wrapped up emotionally in their fantasy and have a hard time separating reality from the game. I understand that struggle, but D&D is probably not what that person needs and will very likely make it difficult to play with that person. Any conflict with the character too easily becomes conflict with the player…yeah. Just feel out the reasons and if it’s an unhealthy relationship with fantasy vs reality, have a talk with them.
Yes, I'll make another character, but is it going to someone that fits in a higher level game, or am I going to cheat somewhat and skip levels? Just to make it fit in with the others?
While I absolutly agree with the idea about not assuming that rerolling is a necessary default everyone will have, I want to come back on the idea that a player ragequitting because he's frustrated that his character died would be worse (11:44). When that happens it generally shows a failure to clearly set expectations from the beginning, just like in the case you are describing. The assumption on many D&D table is that character death is on the table, so much so that it is often overlooked when discussing the set up of the game and onboarding new players; but it is absolutly valid for a playe not to want that part of the experience. Like for anything else you juste have to make sure that everyone is on the same page, and if the rest of the table thinks that would break their own immersion in the game, then this is not the right table for him. One particular difficulty is with players completly new to TTRPG, who might not see any problem with the concept of character death at the start of the game (when they have no emotional investment in the character ) but change their minds as they get to know their character. That's why, while necessary, sessions 0 aren't the be all end all of setting expectations, and there should be an open discussion about it all throughout the campaign.
I'm not sure what to think about this. It's never come up in my games and I hadn't really considered it until I saw this video. I think I see what you mean. Not wanting to come back to the game isn't necessarily a threat or a sign the game is bad. It is about narrative after all. And I can imagine that a replacement for a lost character can have a big act to follow. Or feel like something you're pigeon holded into (the party needs a rogue, or a healer etc.) You've given me a lot to think about. Thank you Mike :)
my DM once told us after we were kidnapped by drow slavers and thrown into some cages next week show up with a back up character ready tp go if you dont do it youll be a human fighter as a next character we escape the drow with our back up characters helping us to get out we get to a town and those characters scatter to the winds but now if a PC dies there is a seeded replacement with reason to be attached to the rest of the party if a death were to happen in the future
@@SupergeekMike didnt really work out for me becuase i wanted to switch to my back up instantly Arcane Trickster kobold > Assassin Rogue drow but hey he got a no ill hold them off moment and became a vampire's minion later so it was worth
There's a person in my discord gaming group that drops this kind of line fairly aggressively anytime the mere possibility of his character dying comes up tangentially. This has come up with the group rotating playing multiple campaigns with different members of the group serving as DM in each. Seems to be referring specifically the campaign that given character is attached to, but he's also very resistant to elaborating so it's all guesswork. He's the oldest person among us and we've been playing together for years and most of us have played previous editions of the game before our current group. It's kind of uncomfortable and confrontational, but mostly have to let it go since this player and others have seen military combat on top of having been in other life-or-death professions like emergency response. ...Character death has never actually happened, though. We all have an uncanny ability to survive the most ridiculous of situations (and/or have someone still alive with access to revival spells and diamonds on hand). It is kinda hard to die in 5E, at least after the first couple levels, but we've survived early levels in a few campaigns, too. Have had people retire characters early to switch to something different. Especially with campaigns that were put into hiatus and rotated back into being active. Who DMs a campaign is based on if they have the extra free time for session prep at the time and who's available to play their characters.
This is an interesting thing to consider, it's good to point out that no everyone making this statement is being petulant or trying to rig the game. So long as its mentioned ahead of time then players should leave whenever they're done with that game.
Well timed. I almost feel like you are talking about Marisha, but obviously not lol. Spoiler for the current season of CR ahead But it's so well timed since she said on the brand new episode of 4 Sided Dive that she's not making a new character right now. Currently her mood is that she's not interested in leaving her latest character behind no matter how many sessions she has to sit out. Obviously that could change but right now she is sticking to her guns about it.
Even if it's not meant in a petty manner, I can still see it being potentially damaging. Because sub-consciously, the DM still doesn't want to kill them to remove said player. And, especially if it's someone who has never played before and is unsure if they wanna stick around, you definitely don't want to kill them because that could leave a sour taste, and you want them to experience a long, fulfilling campaign so they have fun and may return. In cases like Bup-Bup, though, leaving is fine. When the group is already rag-tag and you set out to accomplish a goal, do it, then dip, I think that's probably the best scenario for leaving. But dying early into the campaign seems incredibly unfulfilling and you'd be leaving rather empty-handed.
It was an ultimatum. It's not a question of perspective. He decided alone the condition underwich he'd keep playing. This decision was final and not open to negotiation. That's the definition of an ultimatum. That's hard to deal with. Better not to.
Except they did negotiate and the decision wasn’t final. That’s something I said in the video. Also, it’s quite possible a player hearing “when we die, we make new characters” is ALSO hearing that as an ultimatum. If they didn’t know that’s what they were agreeing to when they started playing D&D, that can be a rude awakening and makes them feel like the experience they signed up for is not what they thought it was. It doesn’t mean the solution is the same every time a player says this, but I do think the first step is the same: ask the question before you even recruit them to the campaign, so you can tailor the style of your story toward the players’ preferences.
What about the player who does rage quit if their character dies? Or the player who does just flat out tell the DM and/or table they won't play if something bad happens to their character (not quitting a game after a specific pre-planned plot arc ends)? That is an ultimatum. And, its possibly unfair to the rest of the players (unless this is how the whole table sees the game, then more power to you, it's not my place, or anyone's place, to tell anyone how to have fun). Because both of those scenarios are things that do happen, and I think that's where people are having an issue. I'm not sure anyone has a problem with a player who only planned to play until they died IN SOME PRE-PLANNED STORY ARC (capitalized to point out the very specific nature of the example), especially if they let it be known (to the DM at least) beforehand, and then explains it to the table afterwards (not necessary, but probably a polite thing to do, so everyone knows no feelings are hurt). Further, someone telling the DM/table they will only play until their character dies because they aren't really interested, or don't know how interested, in D&D they are, is just not the same thing. In this circumstance, however, it's probably best for the individual player and DM to resort to the pre-planned short term story arc in the first example, and for the DM to let that player know they are free to change their mind, revise the story arc, or make a new character, if they decide they are interested in continuing. Or you can maybe retcon something if the player has grown attached to the player (which obviously happens), have the character be captured, make it a new quest, etc. (lots of options here). I will agree that the issue is with player and table expectations. However, just knowing those player expectations isn't really the whole answer. If everyone at the game is ok with, and expects the possibility of, character death, except for one player who just says "nope, I'm immune" that's not fair to everyone else. And the person who needs to change their expectations or find someone else to play with is that individual player, not everyone else who is already in agreement. There's a lot of talk these days about older players telling newer players that they're playing the game wrong and how that is gatekeeping or abusive or whatever else (IT IS, PERIOD). However, I would argue that that goes both ways. An individual telling a group that they are having fun wrong is the same as a group telling an individual they are having fun wrong. Not trying to be adversarial or disrespectful, but it feels like this video only acknowledged certain REASONABLE reasons to say you won't continue in a campaign if your character dies. But it very much glosses over why this idea can be objectionable, toxic, and problematic. And I think, although have no evidence other than anecdotal evidence, that the problematic reasons are far more frequent occurrences than the two (AGAIN COMPLETELY REASONABLE) examples discussed in the video (certainly online, maybe not so much in in person games, since those tend to be played by and amongst IRL friend groups). Just the two cents from someone who doesn't matter. Again, not trying to be adversarial, I just feel like mentioning all of the reasons (acceptable and unacceptable) would have made for a more complete discussion of the issue.
I'm weirdly in the opposite situation. I'm in a campaign that's had a lot of PC turn over so only me & one other player are still playing are original PCs (who are pretty linked story-wise). That plus other players not being super invested resulted in me getting a "if your character dies, the campaigns done" from my GM.
I may have accidentally done the ‘if my character dies, I’m done playing’ thing when I first started dnd. It was during a campaign where I was playing a warforged bloodhunter- I had rolled him up randomly. Everything was randomized and he wasn’t the most optimized. His blood rite was lightning, so we just figured he attached wires he ripped out to his flail. -and the dm had killed my character and made it where my character was under the bad guy’s orders and had no free will/a dmpc/a npc. Well. We hadn’t had a session 0 really or talked about what would happen after my warforged ‘died’, so I left because I thought that the group, of at least 7, didn’t need me anymore and that the dm would called me over when my warforged was not under the bad guy’s control. (The dm had a copy of my character sheet, so he could have played the character.) The next thing I know the dm is calling me over and asking if I wanted to make a new character. I asked him, “Why? Are we playing in a new campaign?” We had been filling the character sheets out by hand and it normally took me a while to fill them out, even with help. Plus, I wasn’t familiar with the idea of making a new character after the old one dying in the campaign. He was a bit puzzled by that question and I don’t think the campaign lasted long after that. So, yea… I hope you have a great day.~ Bye.
Exactly, I think a lot of players (especially new players) just don’t know the expectations of their DM - and I’d argue that’s not on the players, but on DMs to get better about onboarding people and managing expectations
I've been reading DnD content, playing DnD video games, for 30 years now. I have only actually played in 3 real games of DnD, two of them since the pandemic began. In my current game, which I now DM but started as a player, listening to the old school players talk constantly about dying and rolling up a new character really sat poorly with me. As in, I was speaking privately to the DM about how such a cavalier attitude had me concerned I was going to be playing in a meat-grinder. Especially in DnD 5e, character death is a very rare occurrence. I think old-school players are going to run into more and more of us folks who are here to tell our character's story, not to be "replaceable cog #16." The counter here is that it means the DM is being forced not to kill the character and, yeah, that's the price of admission. There was no mechanical reason Buppup died, after all, it was a choice her player made.
Back in 1E you could roll a new pc in 3 minutes if not a spell caster, 5 minutes if a spell caster due you picking or rolling for spells. But you only had Fighter-ranger-paladin, Cleric-druid, Thief -Assassin, monk, Magic User _illusionist, and occasionally Bard. Dual and multiclassing were more difficult if you RAW. Your magic load out and how you drew your PC is how you make your PC different. Since all 5th level thief had a base 50% to pick pocket before race adjustments.
I don't know how relevant this will be to the video, but the story of Bup-Bup reminds me of an issue I had in my own Curse of Strahd game. Also minor spoilers for CoS if anyone hasn't played it. It was my first time Dming it, and one of the players wanted to play a Reborn Dusk Elf woman who wanted revenge on Rahadin. I agreed to this because I was new and I thought this would be a good way to include a recurring villain and tie into some of the other plot hooks. However, the player suffered hard from main character syndrome and would argue constantly with the party, who would rather have fun drinking wine after a job than brooding over the next stage of the journey. She also told me in private that she did this because she didn't trust the party and even said this publically while talking to NPCs. For context, she didn't trust the party because they stopped her from killing Rahadin the first time he showed up (what actually happened was she charged him like an idiot and got downed thanks to his screaming aura). Eventually it got to a point where the other characters were getting vocal about how unlikable this Reborn was, so the player and I talked about it, and she agreed to swap her character and keep playing with a new one. However, the bakstory she gave me was awful and didn't fit with the setting at all. To simplify it, the Reborn Dusk Elf woman was actually a living Yuan-Ti woman this whole time who had been possessed by the spirit of a vengeful Dusk Elf, and used heavy makeup to fool everyone, even other Dusk Elves, into thinking she was one. Now the Yuan-Ti was going to regain control of her body and banish the spirit. I said no to this concept and asked her to make a new one that had nothing to do with the Reborn. She replied by quitting the game, saying that I was spitting on the memory of her Reborn and everything they had accomplished if she couldn't have a character tied to her past.
Honestly I think the main reason this happens is many people would be much happier playing an RPG that isn't D&D. I say this as an avid, lifelong player of D&D. It's my favorite game. And it seems to me many people want more narrative games where you can't die by accident. D&D isn't that game, unless you employ a lot of DM fiat. To be clear, this isn't *wrong*, I just think it demonstrates the limitations created in the TTRPG space when D&D is so massive and sometimes pretends to be a more generic roleplaying system than it is
That’s part of it - D&D does assume that character death is the biggest potential consequence you can deal with. But if you are going to play D&D, I think this issue just has to do with whether or not the big fear of your game is whether or not death is the big danger. There’s nothing wrong with that being the biggest concern of your campaign, but if your campaign is more structured around corruption or unintended consequences, then death can be a less significant part of the campaign without you sacrificing any dramatic stakes.
Thank you! And yes, the microphone is way better sound-wise but there’s not a great place to put it where it’s out of frame. My next patreon goal is still to get a new mic, ideally one that is powerful enough to sit out of frame and still pick up all the relevant audio.
I have a player that puts A LOT of thought into her characters for our long-term campaigns. We ran a series of oneshots between our first game (2 years long) and our second. She had no interest in those because, for her, the best parts of D&D are character-driven story moments. I am a little worried, because the new party is comprised of two warlocks, an artificer, a rogue, and a fighter. No support caster, no healer, no revivify until level 9. I hope she would be willing to make a new character and continue playing with us, should her current one die, but I just don't know.
It all depends on the reasoning. If someone just wants to "win" D&D then I'd say good riddance to them. If that person's a friend and not a rando, I'd talk with them. I found the video interesting but when most people talk about this issue, they're talking about people being jerks, not someone who just feels like they've done their part. It's the difference between quitting mid-shuft and an early retirement.
True, how people handle it is important, but it’s also important to remember that some players might not realize this is controversial, and to assume they’re operating in good faith and not being a jerk. That’s just a good rule of thumb in general
Geezer here... Yep I am old. Ya "young yipper snappers" got some new ways of looking at it. If that's what trips your trigger go for it, have fun. At a gut level, the temptation is. There's the door. Hope you find a group ya fit in. This one is not it. Character death happens, we talked about that pre-sesson one. That's why you were told to consider what your *next* character will be. Want to play level 1 to 20, no plot armor kid. In over 4 decades I did it a half dozen times. Have played and had literally 10,000s of characters. Does no one give a heads up on this anymore? Gaming on.
My first character hasnt died yet but i still have an idea for a second character. The group all play magic the gathering together so the campaign is set in ravnica
I think you’re overlooking that this is basically demanding special treatment from the DM. And we all know if the player who demands that is the DM’s SO, they’re going to get it.
How is it “special treatment” to play with someone for as long as they’re willing to play? What’s the alternative, to not play with them at all? Who wins in that scenario?
@@SupergeekMike The only way you ensure that their character doesn't die is special treatment. Plot armor, usually. And how are other players supposed to feel if their characters can die, but someone else's can't. Especially if that player is the DMs partner?
@@HoosierJedi I never said you ensure the character doesn’t die. I said sit down with your players and discuss it like adults and figure out what everyone is comfortable with.
@@SupergeekMike The only way I can see to keep someone at the table after that is some sort of special treatment. If you have another idea, I'm listening.
@@HoosierJedi How about the second half of the video, where I told a story about a character dying and the player leaving the table, and everyone being fine with it? But you’re partially right, I should make a video about the many ways to handle character death in games that don’t necessarily require a new character. I guess you’ll have to trust me that I DO have suggestions, and subscribe until I make that video.
While this has never occurred to me, I can understand that player's feelings. I take the RPing of DnD more seriously than this is a "mechanics TT game." If I don't have a PC that would suit the campaign, fit with the group, or no inspiration to create one let alone be invested in, it'd make no sense to continue to play, because all those problems will show fairly early and ruin the game for others. There's players that treat their PCs like the sheets they are, but others get very invested in their PCs and their own enjoyment in immersion in the story. If they see no future in the game once their PC died, they have every right to leave.
When you said you took another bouddoir photo session you mean the add shot, right hahaha. After watching you video I think I should talk to my players and see what are their thoughts (all of us are kinda newbies, me as a DM, them into TTRPG) so it could be helpful to have some insight just in case.
I have only one character that I would probably stop playing if he died, but it's okay. I'm confident it would be a deserved death, and I would still completely love to be in every session listening to my friends, and to learn where the story moves. It's just that we're playing in a pretty specific homebrew, and the race/class limitations that are left are not specifically appealing to me. Besides, we're basically at the climax of the campaign, and getting someone new so late I think would feel jarring.
I fall in the middle with this. It's really depends on the player and the character. As a DM, I've experienced players do this on both ends of the spectrum. There were jerk players who intentionally made bad choices and left when their characters died. Good riddance for those players because they weren't there for the group's enjoyment. I've had players who felt like they had a complete story and it was a good stopping point for them. No bad feelings about it and it was a good story they were a part of.
Tbh if I've spent 100s of hours investing in a character, I'd find something else to do on Friday rather than shoehorn in a new one. It'd suck for everybody to have to play around this new obstacle of a character.
What moment from D&D history would you like to hear Artivus Gleem's perspective on next time Dscryb sponsors the show?
Thanks so much to Dscryb for sponsoring this video! Visit dscryb.com/supergeek and use the term SUPERGEEK at checkout to get 10% off of your first subscription payment.
dscryb.com/supergeek
I'd love to hear a rational perspective on how the Tomb of Horrors was developed.
Imagine not having 50 backup characters in various stages of completion
Unimaginable 👁️👄👁️
Who possesses such power? Where does one learns this dark arts
And then create another one once your character does bite the dust and maybe make another 10
@@alexlittle92 i have never had a character die.
It doesn't help that i tend to make support/tank (easier to justify "powergaming" when it doesn't screw with the party)
@@katharinameinzer6297 step 1: be a permadm. Step 2: cry because you’re a permadm with 100s of character ideas you’ll never get to play
@@katharinameinzer6297
Easy, be a permadm
I was the proverbial red shirt for the first gaming group I played in a long time ago. Character death was part of the game, but I was dying every session. I almost quit after I died one more time….. but when the character died it wasn’t because of a stupid mistake….. It was a choice that I made to save the group Paladin so the group would survive.
At the end of the session, instead of burying my dead character in a shallow grave they returned his body to his family because of his sacrifice. There they met his cousin, my back up character number 7. He was the third ranger I had ever played. After he joined the group he survived the rest of the campaign. He is the basis for how I play rangers to this day.
Oof well I’m glad you were able to break the death cycle for that campaign!
@@SupergeekMike I was new and didn’t know anything, what changed was how that character death was handled and then the group took the time to really explain the mechanics. They had been playing together for a year and figured I was going to be a part time/no time player. When I sacrificed the character to save the Paladin vs my normal rush head first strategy, they saw I was trying to help vs be “the guy”. Those guys ended up being some of my closest friends I’ve ever had. Miss those guys.
The story about Bup-Bup was amazing. I'm playing Ireena in my husband's curse of strahd game right now actually. I don't know anything Ireena doesn't know, so it's pretty exciting to slowly peel back the layers. As for players who are only interested in playing their one character, I think that's valid. I'm running a campaign for my brother and his friends, people I don't know well. In session zero I said I'm not planning a deadly campaign, but character death might happen and to have a backup character idea. I feel like stuff like this is perfect for session zero.
Tangentially related, I also wish that death wasn't the only way most group swap characters; I've had a couple characters where I would have been pretty happy retiring them after they got enough money to open that potions shop they dreamed of/reunited with their lost sibling/what have you, or even temporary retire a character while they go on a solo adventure off screen and come in with a temp until the character returns
I have switched characters like 2 times, first was the original wasn't making me enjoy the game so I changed, the second was I left my character to do something while I play as one of the NPCs (which I help make) for awhile. It's all cool to have a moment where you switch people out or play something else for like 12 sessions
As a (3.5) GM I absolutely allow characters to retire, for any reasonably valid character or player reason. It doesn't happen often, but sometimes a character concept isn't working out, or doesn't mesh well with the party dynamic, and I see no reason a player should be required to keep playing a character they aren't enjoying.
In one case, a character was reincarnated, and the player wasn't a fan of the race they ended up; they continued playing the character until the conclusion of the quest they were in the middle of, but then bowed out as they reasoned the character needed to spend time figuringbout who they were in their new body. Their next character was quite different and they enjoyed playing a lot more.
In another instance, a character had been energy drained and ended up lower level. The player decided that the event traumatised the character so much that they were now afraid to go adventuring. No problem - new character time!
One of the things I do as a GM is specify the available races and classes for starting characters, for each of my homebrew campaigns, based on the flavor I have chosen for the setting - primarily so that I don't have a primary culture that everyone is assumed to be familiar with only to end up with every character being some exotic race and/or class from somewhere else. But if someone has a character die, or retires a character, I open up the possibilities for their replacement character, and will work with the player to provide a way to incorporate a more exotic character into the setting if they pick something not already incorporated.
RIP Bup-Bup. What an icon.
Actual footage of Bup-Bup enacting their revenge: ua-cam.com/video/0rYhToUXF4c/v-deo.html
Props to Bup Bup's player. Cool idea.
Well played
I just have to acknowledge how much you've been embracing your humor and I'm absolutely here for it 🙌
Thank you!
Seconded, the tone is getting more and more assured with each new video and I am HERE for it !
I agree: communication about expectations is key. I played in a game where someone's character died, and the party did a hard pivot from quest completion to "New quest! Bring character back to life!"
The DM went along with it, drafting up a temp-PC for the characterless player to play (with knowledge of how/where to get items and a caster for the ritual, since we were too low-level to do it ourselves). Everyone went into the new quest with two expectations: first, that the party would eventually succeed in bringing the character back to life, and second, that the original quest would be harder when we picked it up again because we'd let time lapse. Both of these came to pass, but everyone was happy about it because we knew what we were getting into.
As an aside, at the height of the resurrection quest, when we'd retrieved most of the materials and paid the caster, one of our other party members almost died (rolled a 1 on a death save when no one else was nearby: much panic over the next "six seconds"). After that combat, one of the party members asked the caster, "So like, just for future reference, can you do a two-for-one deal, or...?"
The story of that barbarian revenant in the Curse of Strahd game is amazing. :D I legit got chills when you said the line!
And pulling off a twist like that with a character named "Bup-Bup" is a pure power move. XD That player was mad stylin' on y'all.
😁 Fully agree!!
@@SupergeekMike if you still know/are on good terms with that person, you oughta let 'em know their storytelling has affected people on the internet :D
I mostly fall somewhere in the middle. I don't want my character to die but if I think that there's something to add to the story with that death then I'm willing to lean into it.
I love storytelling but I do want to have at least the choice of continuing playing as the character. Again, it depends what the DM has in mind.
Idk if this is the normal mindset, I definitely love creating new characters.
Fun fact - When I started my job, for the first three weeks my stress coping mechanism was making DnD character sheets (most of them are 3rd level except for two).
I made 15 full character sheets.
I agree. I have character ideas and I love my group, but unless I play a knowingly death heavy game. I don't expect or want to die. Like I invest myself heavily into my character and them dying feel like a baby I have get killed and I got to just move on. I'm for it if I know the risks, like a big final fight with Strahd, but not in the middle of a dungeon st level 6.
I totally sympathize with this mindset, Even with a group that plays all the time and plays other things together. I play roleplaying games. I am the exact demographic that should always want to make a new character.
Look, I do make a new character if it happens. I set aside my wishes and do it because I want to play the game with my friends. But the fact remains that I have to set that instinct aside; my first thought is closer to kind of...not wanting to.
When I play a long-term game, with a ton of backstory weaving, character development, and heavy roleplay emphasis, that character becomes an interictal part of the story. Especially if it's been years in the making.
Another character really doesn't feel the same in that moment. A new character feels awkward and focused. Even when we fake it, there is no natural bond. It doesn't feel right and it sucks a lot of the fun out for me.
These are the types of games I play, and this is probably why death is actually very rare. In fact, that's something we struggle with a bit, where we have a bit too much plot armor. We haven't perfected the balance yet.
I do wish I had a good answer for this because man. Sometimes its really hard to come back from those moments.
I try to seed some options with the DM ahead of time, keep concepts in reserve, and usually ask for time before I return but it is still a challenge. I think one of the most effective ways to make it work is for the death in the campaign to have weight and meaning for the party, perhaps change their direction. That is rare, but it seems to help the affected player grieve and feel like their death was narratively valuable, even heroic.
I am with you on this. Creating a new character isn't the end of the world, but it sure takes a lot of fun out of the game for me. At least for a couple of sessions. As you said, having to introduced and integrate a new person into an already established group is awkward. And it's definitly my least favourite part of the game, possibly because I do lack the ability to easily connect with people in real live too.
On top of that I do put a lot of thought and emotion into my characters and it hurts to loose a character. I build my characters to explore certain experiences. If I create an emotionally closed of character and I want to take them through the process of learning to open up and that character dies before that can happen, I loose one of my main motivations for playing. Sure I could make a new character who starts where the old one died, but where is the point in letting the first character die if I am going to create a carbon copy of them anyway? It also makes a situation that already feels forced and unnatural feel even more so.
I'd much rather take ridiculously heavy plot armor, than create a new character. Fortunetly I haven't had to find out how ridiculous the plot armor can get before it defeats the point of not breaking the story, yet.
It's why, as a dm myself, only levels 2-4 have any real risk of death (i usually don't dm any higher than lvl 8 or 9 tho, a thing i'm working on changing). My players don't know this tho, but accidents happen. I generally try to introduce them to an NPC they can befriend once they get past those earlier lvls to help the subtle plot armor set it (typically a reincarnate, so there's a least some consequence). And it doesn't feel quite so much like plot armor because it was there along and not an option that appeared the second they needed it. The balance is really hard tho, but it's worth noting death isn't the only threat you can give your players. I'm generally very against killing characters of any sort because it means their story ends there. Finished or unfinished, the act itself is always unsatisfying to me and most of the people I play with (unless they approach me for it first). The aftermath is where the good bits come in. That being said, your party can't be everywhere at once. Sure they'll pretty much always succeed at whichever thing they run off to do, but if xyz all require their attention; they're gonna have to make some decisions. It works to also encourage the party to reach out to the NPCs they've met along they way. For example, one of the NPCs my party met is currently got a broken wing and being held hostage in a bandit camp in an incredibly dangerous forest with no means of escaping. A nice sending spell helped the party realize this, and being inadvertently responsible for the situation she's in; they really want to go rescue her. *But* one of the PCs has currently got their life on a timer under threat from a Sapphire Dragon (long story). They don't have time to go help her, so with good old sending, they contacted a different nearby NPC (that their p close friends with) to go and try to rescue her. Now that NPC has a chance of failing, and if he does, the party has to deal with the consequences of that.
TLDR:
Don't just kill PCs to make them feel like there's consequences, cause them emotional damage instead ;)
Edit: Grammar
I get very attached to my character. But I also make a dozen backups for every long campaign I play in. Then I fall in love with the backups and lament that they'll never get used.
Oof this is too real
The most valuable thing I learned from DnD is that getting attached is great, but never let the attachment hinder you. The ability to let go is profoundly cathartic, in DnD and outside it.
I love my characters, and yet, at each death I'll greet it with a smile.
Some choose to view it as a new beginning, but I see it as no different than walking. You do it, and it should be easy the more you do.
☺️
I had pcs died before the erasable ink dried. Do they still make those pens?
It felt really weird to me listening to this because I feel like there was a massive, glaring omission and the only time it was touched on was almost derisive. The fact of the matter is that players often get very, very emotionally invested in their characters. Even when I'm not playing, I frequently spend a lot of time planning how they will develop both mechanically and socially - what directions I want to take them and what stories I want to tell with them. In a setting where death is final, where dying means that all of that anticipation, hope, expectation is just gone - that can be pretty hollowing. I don't think it fair to chalk that up to just anger or rage quitting if someone who goes through that finds it hard to pick up the pieces and reinvest that same level of emotional energy into a new character and in so doing make themselves vulnerable to going through the same experience a second time.
And I do think a lot of that comes down to expectation and communication - what players are at the table for in the first place. A significant number of people I've played with over the years aren't there to tell the high drama epic tale, they are there for functionally escapism. They're looking for a world where they can feel like they are heroic, like they matter, when so often the real world tells us we don't - and for a lot of those players who live vicariously through their characters, the sentiment that your character is disposable, replaceable, and bound to the service of the narrative is really, really off-putting. Much less holding the game hostage, it feels very entitled to me that you have the expectation that someone will, someone must, make a new character to keep the game going if that no longer appeals to them.
In the games I am active in right now - I genuinely don't know if I would, or could, bring myself to replace a dead character. Fortunately, in all but one I can't imagine a circumstance where a dead PC couldn't be brought back, so I really don't have to for the most part. Either way though, I don't think it fair to expect people spend their leisure and relaxation time to uphold your fun when doing so is stressful, painful, or even simply uninteresting to them and the idea the show must go on whether they like it or not seems really toxic.
It’s an understandable position, it’s just very much outside the norm and would need to be clearly communicated up front. I’ve never heard someone take this stance. If that’s the level of attachment you have to your character, something like Dungeon World (or some other narrative style game where character death only happens when it fits the shared narrative) might be better than D&D where character death can happen just due to bad luck. Not because D&D can’t accommodate this, but just because of the shared expectations the different systems generally have.
@@johnathanrhoades7751 I don't think it is as rare as you think it is. If you look through the comments of this video, there are tons of people who talk about getting attached to their characters and it isn't like the comment sample size is enormous either. I'd caution about your experiences be taken as representative of the entire hobby as every table is different, every group of players is different, hell, every campaign is different. Even two different characters in the same campaign can be different affecting - the one I am most attached to of mine is themselves a replacement character for one I voluntarily retired earlier in the campaign. Attachment isn't always something you can plan for, sometimes it just grows out of great story and great RP.
I likewise agree setting expectations at the beginning is important and part of that is choosing a system that meets the expectations of the table. At the same time, expectations and interests can change over very long campaigns to a point where changing systems may no longer be practical and so communicating with the table and being flexible in the system you have is important for long campaigns too.
There is a bit of a difference, to your character dying, you spending some time thinking about it, and going, "I was too attached to that character in that story to want to make a new one, if there isn't a revival opportunity I'm going to step out of the game" and seeing the game master getting ready to hit you when you're low on health and telling him that if he kills your character you are done, which is the situation he mentioned derisively, the first is respectfully stepping out of the game, and the second one is trying to hold the game master's actions hostage, through telling them you won't hang out anymore, and potentially throwing off the groups balance.
You have a lot of valid points here, But I don't think the derisiveness was directed at the situation you are talking about, and I don't necessarily think its toxic for people to assume someone will make a replacement character when their first dies, or to try to convince their friend that they have more fun at the table when their friend is playing with them, it definitely can turn toxic if the conversation goes to places that are disrespectful, but that's a different situation entirely.
as for personal attachment causing you to drop out of a campaign, my first game, I was very attached to the character I was playing, who was a bit tailor made to the adventure we were running, which was an evil campaign where we were trying to stamp down a rebellion, and 2 of other players decided they were annoyed and done with what we had been doing, and wanted to take their characters to a different adventure, 3 or 4 options were brought up, and 1 of those was something that my character would basically never agree to, and I pointed at that one in particular and said that I was okay with all of them except for that one, if that was the one that got picked by everyone else, I'd leave the game because my character wouldn't go in that direction, and I didn't really want to make a new one because 1-2 other people wanted to swap entire games when I was enjoying the original, they discounted the other games from the list because they weren't interested, and I stepped out of the game. I'm still a bit salty because 2 people derailed an entire game that the other 3 were still having fun with, and wanted me to completely change the character I was most interested in playing at a drop of a hat instead of moving to a game where he fit better than the one they were proposing.
@@Arcon1ous Most of the video the discussion about not continuing are things like 'my new character wouldn't be as invested in the story', 'I don't know if D&D is right for me', 'I don't think I can do better than the character I just played,'. Skimming the video again, the one point of the discussion that gets involved with the emotion of character death lasts for about two sentences. It is just before the 12 minute mark where it is mentioned that someone might be so angry with their character death they rage quit the campaign. He does mentioned that this is stigmatized, but rather than take an opportunity to call that out - open the very valid discussion about player emotion over character losses (not even necessarily just PC death), he just rolls on with implied acceptance that of course anger over character death isn't legitimate. Nothing is said at all of being hurt by it. That is what I referred to as derisive, this idea that emotions felt in the event of a death are invalid.
And I don't disagree it isn't toxic to try and convince someone to stay, or to communicate you find the table more fun with them. My point was it becomes toxic when there is a social expectation that they will remain at the table past the point the game is fun for them. If my fun is being had at the expense of making someone else commit hours a week of their leisure time to something they don't enjoy, that's a problem and well past the point of being reasonable.
@@johnathanrhoades7751 While that's definitely true of _some_ narrative games (And some games that aren't really narrative - Fabula Ultima, for example, has if you drop to 0hp you get to choose if you die (in which case your character does something cool in a moment of self sacrifice, either advancing the party's aims or doing a significant chunk of damage to the villain in a combat) or not (in which case there will be negative narrative consequences, but your character will survive), I remain surprised to see this coming up as something common to them, since most PbtA - the most prominent example of narrative games and the cluster from which Dungeon World comes from - I've read and played have character death that the players can't really avoid if they don't want it. In some cases, inevitable character death if you keep playing the campaign long enough.
For a couple of PbtA examples, in Monster of the Week your characters are going to burn through their luck points and when that happens their death is only a matter of time. Escape from Dino Island is extremely deadly - It's pretty much a 2hp game (just the hit points are called wounds and have more of a narrative consequence for taking them) and once you hit 0, your character dies. (sort of. It theoretically has the option to not die if you take the casualty move, but your character is effectively dead if you take that option; you're still making a new character, that character's still unconscious and unable to operate, just... If you take that option _and_ the rest of the party gets your character off of the island they'll recover)
I can't speak for Dungeon World, I've not read it, but 'you only die if you decide your character should die' is just not something I inherently associate with that style of play.
I've been a fan of Colville for a long time now, and I am continually surprised at the things he has never before encountered in his long career of DMing. I've only been Dming for a little under 10 years, and I've checked tons of those things off. Goes to show every crowd and table are different.
Precisely!
There was a campaign (not D&D, but irrelevant to the story) where my character died in a fairly unsatisfying way. I tried to make a replacement character, but the replacement wasn't fun to play and wasn't gelling with the group, so I talked to my DM about ways to bring the previous character back in some way. He seemed pretty on board with the idea at first, we even worked out a custom ghost template that we agreed wasn't too OP, and then right before the session where I was to be reintroduced he abruptly changed his mind. I quit the campaign on the spot.
I haven't personally encountered this mentality in any games that I've run, but this is an interesting topic and has got me thinking about how I'd handle this if it came up in one of my games.
It really sounds like the main issue is a misalignment of the expectations between the DM and the player. Like your story with Bup-Bup, I think as long as this was discussed and organised with the DM in session 0, or talked about privately early on in the campaign, then this really wouldn't be an issue.
However, I think it does become an issue if that sort of discussion never happened, and the player just drops this on the DM mid-game as soon as they encounter a challenging/dangerous situation. Depending on the group, this can put the DM into a bit of an awkward situation where they may feel that they need to give the player character a bit of plot armour so they don't lose the player. Losing a player can cause a whole range of issues if you're not prepared for it as DM, and especially if you don't game with a lot of players.
For example, if you have 4 players, and 1 player is a bit flakey, you can still run the game with 3 people, but if one of the reliable players just entirely drops out because their character died, you might get into a situation where the game needs to be postponed due to wanting at least 3 players present, or you might need to start looking for a replacement player which can change the entire group dynamic. In the worst case scenario, this can even cause a campaign to just die off from scheduling issues. So, I think it's important for players to understand that depending on the size of their group, their very presence can make or break the group.
I also think the intent of the player is key if this comes up. There's obviously a big difference between someone wanting to come into a game just to add their own story element, then leave once that's done (like the Bup-Bup story), as opposed to someone trying to manipulate the DM into giving their character plot armour or an edge over the other players. A player just stating mid-game "If my character dies, I'm leaving the game" can often be taken by the DM and other players as the later.
At the end of the day, like Mike said, this can all be cleared up by having an adult discussion between the DM and players to get everyone on the same page.
Precisely!
I honestly don’t know what I would do if my character dies, I just have the “I’ll deal with it if it happens” mindset and hope it doesn’t happen.
Worked for me so far
You definitely made a lot of good points that I'm going to try and keep in mind whenever I finally get around to DMing my own campaign. I think as long as they're not saying it to try and hold the campaign hostage it should be just fine if someone wants to just make the one character. I do agree that having it be a session 0 question be important as it can allow for the player and the DM to have a conversation about maybe why the player is feeling that way and how to go forward in a way that works for everyone.
I hope you do start DMing soon, it’s a ton of fun! 😁
I think that for context, Matt Colville had made it clear in prior videos that he had multiple campaigns going at Turtle Rock and it sounded like he culled a few players in order to merge the groups.
While he doesn't state it in the Campaign Diary Mike refers to, that likely influenced Matt's reaction to the player. He probably felt as though he had told other friends they could not play in his game and then another person he thought was a friend wasn't respecting that sacrifice that had been made so that they had a seat at the table.
The Gygax Warp was unexpected but hilarious
Haha thanks!
I've only started playing TTRPGs in the last year or so. And I completely understand this attitude - it's something I might have to work through once my first character dies.
I'm a big video game fan, and for me, having my character dying half way through a campaign would be like Commander Shepard dying on Mars after escaping Earth. All the emotional investment, all the obstacles that were overcome, and the friends made, and the mysteries unraveled would be for nought. And I feel like if I'm doing my job correctly, and the GM is doing their job correctly, it *should* be difficult to move on from a character.
Part of me almost is curious about a campaign where you start with the maximum number of players the DM is comfortable running a game for, and when they die, they die. I think it would make for a much more gripping story and make players fear going down in battle more if when they die, they stop playing. In practice I think it would create overly cautious players who take 4 sessions to pass through a dungeon, or would be over too fast with a TPK.
Really interesting topic today, Mike! I can imagine getting super attached to my character and playing on without them my be hard for me. I don’t know for sure because that hasn’t happened, but it’s interesting to think about.
I know for me, I het more attached to the story than the character, so like, if my character dies, then, well, that's cool! They had a good run!
A lot of times, I'll do something like pick an npc that was close to the party or work with the DM about being a random villager or something thats in the area the players will be at the start of next game and just make up a reason to want to join.
With my current alchemist, if she dies, my plan is to make her homunculus familiar into the new character, basically using it as an extra life. She did make the familiar from her own blood, in her own image, to be able to learn more about her strange anatomy bestowed through celestial lineage after all
I’m new to dnd and I love my dex based gnome paladin. We have killed a dragon and pulled my team back from the brink of a TPK together. I was crushed when we faced that TPK and the horror of loosing Kelvin, but I and everybody else at the table started talking about backup characters and what stats we would change. I still would feel horrible if I lost Kelvin, he is my first character after all, but I also am “dying” to try another class and eagerly look forward to when I can!
A very healthy attitude!
Really interesting topic today! I haven't had that happen when DMing, but I would hope I wouldn't take it personally. I actually felt that way, though ultimately created a new character for the campaign. For me, my character died in the later stages of the campaign. We were at higher levels, 15 I think, and when my character died, I just felt done. Like I said, I got back into the game with a new character, but it just didn't feel right. I think going forward, I might even make that intention clear: I die after a long time with one character, I'm out.
I think it's worth at least considering whether there's room to set up an alternative for yourself. If you know that it would be hard for you to pick up with a character who hasn't had any opportunity to become invested in the group, that's a thing you can prepare for. You can do something like create a backup who exists in the world as an ally to the party who doesn't (yet) participate in their active adventuring, but does some other useful things for them in the background, which allows for laying some groundwork that makes it feel like there's a natural opportunity for this person to step in when the party suffers a loss.
Yeah, I'm currently playing in a campaign that's two and a half years old, and my character is level 17. Normally, I'm pretty cool with rerolling if my character dies, but I think despite being okay with this character dying, I think I'd find it hard to feel invested in a new character if this one died permanently after so long engaging with this particular narrative with this particular character. I think I'd probably ultimately reroll as well, but I think the adjustment period would take a while.
I think everything around character death needs to be discussed in Session Zero or prior to joining a game. Any version of the situation is valid as long as everyone is aware of what everyone else's limits and expectations are. For example, in my 5e game, I made it clear I wasn't okay with my character dying before the end of the story. The GM was absolutely free to tell me no, and then I wouldn't have joined. It's that simple. I'm not okay with getting attached to a character the way I inevitably will with a DnD campaign and then having them die to something unimportant or inconsequential halfway through. It would feel wasteful and hollow and like I'd wasted my time for months or years only to fill in that space with useless nonsense in a new character.
But I discussed this, up front, with the DM and most of the other players felt the same way about it. We were simply a group for which permanent character death was not on the table, and at worst our characters would be out of commission for a while until we could get them revived and it would cost us resources and possibly social capital in our in-world universe. That worked for us. I totally get why it doesn't work for some other tables, but that's the beauty of this game- every table gets to decide what is right for their table.
I also don't feel that being upset about the circumstances of a character death is necessarily rage quitting, holding a game hostage, or being spoiled or whiny. People get attached to characters, and the emotional input in a DnD game shouldn't be overlooked. A lot of people put something of themselves into their characters, and it's not always easy to just let it go and make a new character. If I feel like crying every time I have to show up to session because I'm playing some sad replacement character instead of the one that I cared about and was interested in, that isn't going to be fun for me or for anyone else.
Lastly, if a campaign can't go on without any single player... that's a problem with the campaign, IMO. If a character died and the player chooses not to roll a new one, why can't you just get a new player? Plenty of people are willing to join after the fact (I was one of them...) and if it's a new character anyway, it shouldn't matter if the player is new as well or not. Honestly, insistence that players roll new characters when they're killed feels a lot more like being spoiled and whiny than the other way around, to me. They are choosing their own level of engagement that they feel comfortable with, and the DM is imposing guilt tripping and "well it's for everyone else" on them unfairly.
Again, it's easily avoidable if the concept of character death is discussed and mutually agreed upon when you start or join a new campaign.
Very well-said ♥️
i said something along the lines of "if my character dies, I'm done playing" once, though it wasn't out of spite or any kind of ultimatum. The group is just really big, and i wanted to leave room for the other players if things came to it. Figured I'd come back in when the next campaign started.
Didn't come to that though, pretty sure the whole idea was swiftly forgotten about a session or two later.
A friend of mine came up with an injury system so that you take a penalty and a permanent injury if you fail your death saves. That way your character and the story you want to tell with them doesn't go out the window while still punishing you for dying. As someone who does not play DND for the combat, but the roleplay (because it's the only roleplay game my friends play that's not a video game with set characters and more finite options), losing the character I actually have motivation to act as and see a character arc through to the end with, is much, much more crippling to me.
I think your points make sense, especially in the context of a player whose participation in the game is clearly provisional anyway in a "I'm trying this out; I'll quit if I'm miserable." sense. I think a thing you should have touched on, though (for the sake of potential viewers who might need to understand why someone might be annoyed with the idea of summarily quitting), is that the size and composition of the group can be very important to the experience of all the players. It's inconsiderate to start something that you don't feel at all committed to finishing without at least communicating that fact clearly to the rest of the group so that they have a fair opportunity to say "Okay, that's your right, but in that case I would prefer not to reserve a seat for you at our table when we could find someone who wants to play out the entire campaign instead."
Long time Call of Cthulhu player. My characters in all games now keep journals and notes, and have an heir roughly drafted to inherit both the notes and the now-dead character's obligations and debts as well as their remaining wealth. Be ready for character death by creating a backup character who has reason to quickly become invested.
ngl there have been times that when my character has died, ive stopped playing in that game, it just didnt make any sense to bring in a new pc at that point of the story being so far in, it wasent malicious or anything it's just what was best for everyone at the table.
The idea that 'oh bad luck, you rolled a 5% chance' just ended the story you've been working on for decades meant that we wanted a system that stopped one of the weakness we saw in D&D (from the '70's until now). In my long-term gaming group we have a fate-point system where you can spend points based on a multiplier of how many times 'fate' has interposed before (points earned by attending sessions and awarded each month). The campaign has been persistent now for over 30 years. There are whole stables of characters for each player that exist in this version of Greyhawk and multiple DM's. It works for us, and still adds a level of danger and investment as time passes and certain, more chaotic, characters reach points where they cannot be saved. It should also be noted that resurrection mechanics are massively nerfed in our world and raising the dead has required massive, month-long campaigns to even attempt.
We just made sure the Rod of Resurrection started with 50 charges and reworked the rod so it was one charge per death. For those who don't have 1E DMG handy I think It was 1 charge for Heal spell and 5 charges for Resurrection. And I think an elf required more charges.
My sister said she would quit the campaign if her character died, and she said that specifically to hold the campaign hostage. Given that, when we started a new game, we...forgot to tell her about it.
Who only plays with just friends? I have played with spouses, snuggle bunnies, freaky friends of friends, and a brother. Now since I am now Adventure League, PC dying is not a rare occurrence. But walking when a PC dies, is a session 0 discussion.
I did this once, but mostly because I was not enjoying the campaign at all. My character died, and I was like, yeah, I think I'm just going to head out.
I think making a new character could have parallels to getting a new pet in this case, not everyone is ready for another when the first is gone.
I've also been thinking about how I'd introduce a new character if my current were to die and it seems rather difficult to me. I mean sure we could just hand-wave something in, but then the character wouldn't really be as invested as the old one. This isn't to say I'd quit my campaign if my character died, just that I can understand that it might feel like your new character doesn't fit. I get how unsatisfying it could seem for your character to just be so easily replaced.
I think that there is some stigma around the players that only want to play ONE character.
Mind you, i am SURE that there are people that do this just to stomp feet and be mad at everybody else in the team.
But we really need to stop putting the "blame" on the people with such mentality of "if i die, I'll stop playing".
There are other ways to make it so that said character don't die but still have a big set back for "dying".
Hell, the GM is quite literally GOD.
If god wants he can take pity on someone and revive them for no specific reason whatsoever!
Is it ""stupid""? Maybe. Does it make everyone happy at the table? Yes.
I will say there has been one character that meant a lot to me on a personal level, and had she died, I wouldn't have been able to experience that partiular setting as a player on a different character - I'd still have attended the sessions to hang out and root for the party, but not as an active player. Other campaigns or settings, who cares... tbh there are games where it's a given that you will die a lot, like Call of Cthulhu or Paranoia. I don't love the style, but I run with it when we play those games.
I remember one of my first D&D characters I had and had developed so much over the years. There were always chances he could die and my partner (who was/is my DM) had been told, if he dies, I'm taking time off before coming back. Just to go through the 'grieving' process of someone I played for years suddenly being gone.
I think if a player wants to step away from the game because of a character death, that's fine. As a player I'd be cautious about them wanting to return further down the line if it was more of a flouncing away reaction or a threat.
I can see myself quiting if I'm already on the fence for other reasons, like time constraints, burnout, or not really liking the campaign or the other players that much, or if the character dies because of something outside of my reasonable control. And I expect the same from my players when I'm the dm. It's supose to be fun, not a chore.
Just had a really long conversation yesterday with my DM about character death.
I am very attatched to my current character, and even if I do have at least 4 other characters waiting in the back "just in case", I would be very dissapointed if my sweet baby boy Deryl had an early and not satisfying death. I play to have my characters live a story. If I don't feel like it's what they were given, it takes away my fun.
I am very grateful for my DM who heard me and took the decision to just ask. If my character goes down or if he does die, I'd still have the possibility of keep playing with him. It does mean that the death would change something (coming back as an undead or with a level in warlock for having made a pact with a demon or something), oherwise it wouldn't be meaningful. But it also means that I get to say goodbye and start again with a new character when I feel ready.
I really love how many people play straight up revenants...including myself
Cool!
Honestly I’m kind of terrified right now because as much as I don’t really *want* to be “that player” like in Matt Colville’s group and don’t want to say so to my DM… the game we’re trying to set up right now has got me so invested in this one character that I have trouble believing I’d really be able to enjoy the game anymore at all if my character ends up dying (permanently) in anything less than a TPK situation when the game would end anyway. I really feel like… yeah, if my character dies, then that’ll just be game over for me, and I won’t really be able to roll a new character and keep playing, even if I try to, because I’m just not going to be able to care about the new character or get the character to care about the game like the first one did.
It’s a distinct possibility that my character very easily *could* die, too, because we’re trying to make a Matt Mercer module that was written for 5 players work for a party of 3, and I don’t think we’re really going to be doing the best job of hitting that healer/tank/DPS trifecta we were hoping would compensate. Hopefully the DM does a good job of rebalancing encounters or loot or something.
I will note that if this campaign actually gets off the ground, it’ll be the first time I’ve actually gotten to play in a proper game instead of one that dies after 1-3 sessions, so… I am still a very new player since I’ve just never really been able to play beyond level 1. >.> still, it’s a genuine concern for me.
Thank you for these videos. You spark thoughts in my head that help me nale down how I want to run things and how to talk to my players about said thoughts.
Thank you!
oo i like the story of bup bup, that actually gives me a really good idea bc one of my players only has 2 sessions with us scheduled before she moves across the country, might snag some of those story beats to give her character a satisfying end!
I’m glad I could help!!
My take on it is that it should always be something you can and should discuss with your players/DM when it comes up.
No matter if you are a lifelong D&D player, new to the hobby or just doing it because you got invited, if the idea of death to your character is not a fun look to you it should be fine.
With this I mean multiple things: Either all the players and DM just accept that that is an end point for the player or they agree that the player in question sometimes just get exempt from the death status.
Sure, this would mean other rules should be put in place to make it fun and fair for everyone, but this is D&D we are talking about. One of the most mod-able games I have ever seen in my life!
Death to them could instead become a penalty, be it short or long term. It could also be that the only thing that happens is them not being able to participate in the moment where they died.
No matter what, I think excluding players with a different mindset on this topic is never a good thing to do.
Agreed!
Hmm I’ll be honest, I am not ready to stop playing the character I have now, however I was warned from session 0 to have backup characters ready. This is because the module I play in is quite dangerous and frankly, I’ve been damn lucky so far to only have had ONE time I went unconscious and was revived not long after. I did make up backup characters though. In fact, my back up character is a sibling of the one I play now. I actually have three set up this way and two of which would be his parents. And they are already written in to some degree because I have brought up their existence before when discussing my backstory in game. A few characteristics have even been dropped in to the story this way too as my current character shares childhood stories. So I am actually building up the history of my backup characters while I play my current one. That doesn’t mean I’m setting up my character to die, I really love playing him and am not ready to put him down yet, but it does mean I’m going to prepare myself and my group, and the story, to have these backup characters transition in as smoothly as I can manage.
This seems to be related to a take I have on lethality in general. I think lethality can be a pretty boring excuse for "consequences". Agreeing that the characters won't die isn't necessarily consequence free as some people seem to say, it's just that you have to put those consequences in another way. Example: If you "die" on a quest to stop an Orcus Cult from doing cultish culty things, you can reflavor that as "the character/party is defeated, and the Orcus cult does the culty thing". Now you're character actually has to deal with the result of their own failings. Friends/Compatriates may die. Worse, they may live and lose faith or trust in the PCs. In a way, when I hear people suggest that (PC) lethality is necessary for consequences, I think the only result they will see are ones in which the PCs are almost completely successful on a large scale, and that feels consequence free to me.
This video, and takes like what considering what death ought to mean are why lethality is a pretty rich discussion for part of session 0 (or an alert for player buy in to a particular campaign).
Personally I do not want my character to die and reach level 20. My inspiration for characters comes in spurts and I typically will only flesh out the type of character and concept that I feel particularly passionate about.
So a combination of playing smart and not having a lot of friends who make decent DM's or players for me to interact with becomes an enormous barrier.
Honestly I thought, until recently, that this was just how people played D&D. I've never had the opportunity to be in a proper campaign before - for context.
I hope you get a chance soon!
I had a PC die in my current campaign. Even if they were high enough level to bring them back, the character was killed by a vampire who absconded with a vampire, so… yeah, that’s not an option.
He had already told me about some backup character concepts he’d been working on so we knew what his next character was going to be before the session ended. But there was still a moment of panic, I won’t deny it.
That's one my first session zero questions, what are your boundaries and my world is lethal, if your character dies do you have backups.
I think I’m gonna do this next time as well!
This is a good channel. I like Mike.
😁
I had a character die once. It was upsetting, but I did keep playing. Just with a new character. It was a TPK, and afterwards the DM started a new game in a new world, so I just made a new character for it. I also have a different character lined up in this world that fits the first character's faction, in case this next one dies too.
In case anyone was wondering, the TPK happened because of several mistakes piling up, and the group failed to survive an ensuing ambush.
Oof yeah sometimes those mistakes just pile up and it’s hard to steer out of the curve
I've got multiple ideas for new characters most of the time, but I'd be sad that the story goes untold of the one. If it happens it happens
Personally I like overstaffed campaigns that take the the dead for the arc, then choose, approach. Gives people time to think about whether they want to rejoin and time to plan an entry they'll be happier with than just walking out of the respawn closet. Plus with a couple extra players means you can afford to have people hang out on the bench for a session or three or even indefinitely without the group being rendered non-functional.
One time I quit campaign unprompted was after DM asked OTHER PLAYERS, wile I coul;d hear it, mind you, if they would like him to turn my character into Dragonborn.
Wow
i had a curse of strahd game where there were multiple deaths with one new character and another resurrected somehow, but one player was killed in a combat encounter and the player just left the session ended mid encounter and then all the other players of the group except me decided to not play that campaign anymore
im still bitter on that since im bad at role play but at that point i had started to get a feel for combat and such and then the game is shut down mid fight
Ugh that sucks
I think there are many reasons to quit when your character dies, for me last time I wanted to do it, it was because I ran out of inspiration, I was satisfied with the story my characters had told (I had already died once in the campaign, this was the second time I died) and I felt like I wouldn't be able to connect with the game if I did, and well my friends convinced me to play another character and I honestly regret it, it was by far the worst time I've ever had playing an RPG, my character fell flat and uninspired (This was in part fault of the DM who kinda kept giving my character things I didn't care about at all in an effort to include the character, by stuff I don't mean loot I mean story hooks and connections), I was so bored during that whole game to the point that I still have no idea how that campaign ended despite the fact that I was there, so I think that sometimes it's just better to quit, I think it's not good to play if you aren't enjoying the game.
And while I get why the DM was like that in giving me the hooks and stuff, which is because I tend to be very engaged with the story and the world putting a lot of effort into the narrative, I think it's important to respect what the player asks for, I said very clearly that I didn't feel like putting the emotional investment in connecting with the story a third time so I was just supposed to be like a minor comic relief companion that travelled with the party but wasn't going to be a main player when it came to influencing the world, because I had put a lot of work into my previous two characters and while I can do that without putting that much work it kinda made the other 2 characters that I really loved feel lesser, like they were forgotten and replaced quickly, besides I wanted to try something new, I was always the serious idealist character that genuinely put an effort into doing stuff, doing something more laid back was supposed to be a nice change of pace, instead it became a chore as a character that was supposed to just be silly had to deal with serious stuff while I was not engaged to put in the effort to do that.
when a character of mine dies and they arent coming back i definitely take a few weeks off. I dont exactly *want* a new character. i dont want to make a new build, come up with a new name. even with my friends, if my character dies, i do not want to play a new character. i will, but it will not be as fun. i built this character flr the campaign. if they die that characters story is over, and any character i make later will be disconnected from the story, and i will care about them far far less, especially if since i have to make a new build and start without any of my magic items.
If my wizard dies, creating a new wizard just feels like a replacement, so i cant go with a new wizard. but that means i have to look through all the subclasses again, play a different class, most likely homebrew my own subclass because i find 90% of them boring and unappealing, the. build that character up to the right level (skipping all of the learning curve of trying a new class and build, and playing something that i may not wind up enjoying).
Making new dnd characters is hard as hell, especially for someone with mental illness. i would not be surprised or upset if a player decided to sit out the rest of the campaign after their character died and couldn't be resurrected.
Supergeekmike, come for the sexy photo shoot, stay for the Dungeons & Dragons stories, takes, and occasional sexy shots during advertisements
😁
I think this is an extreme reaction to something that is why I am so averse the high difficulty. For me it takes between three and twelve sessions depending on the game to get back to the point where i'm having fun in a d n d game. More to the point unless I made a stupid player mistake that I should have known based on my information and understanding the trust is broken. The question occurs to me why should I spend months rebuilding before I start having fun again Is with the serious risk of it happening again?
As part of session 0, I have my players take a short campaign interest/boundaries survey (which can obviously be way excessive for some groups, but that's just he vehicle this is coming to them through) and one section of the survey is just a series of yes or no statements on lethality within the game. The three that relates directly to the player's character are basically that their character falls unconscious in a dangerous situation but doesn't actually risk dying, their character may die in a dangerous situation but could be brought back with some form of help, and my character may die but I can make a new character to replace them. These are each set up so that someone could check yes to all three to say whatever happens happens, and I've had some players to obviously want to feel like death is always a risk and so check no on the first one.
I'm not sure where the kind of player preference described in the video would fit in these, although I will say with a lot of new players this is generally what I hear from them, especially for their first character. Still, figured I'd share in case anyone was interested in incorporating discussions of lethality into their session 0s or games in general. 🙂
Gotta respect the commitment to the bit for that ad dude lol. Great video!
Thank you!
I agree fully in this outlook, and it's good for that epic ending that can differ than just defeating the big bad. When it's from that new player side, and the player that just, ends when it ends and doesn't want to rejoin midway, that's cool. But if it's a sentence used as an ultimatum against the DM or sometimes even, the rest of the group; then I disagree.
One of my groups is basically family, so yeah, we get together to play MtG or board games when we’re missing too many people to play D&D. I think there are lots of reasonable reasons to hold this view, but one to be careful about is when it is because a player is too wrapped up emotionally in their fantasy and have a hard time separating reality from the game. I understand that struggle, but D&D is probably not what that person needs and will very likely make it difficult to play with that person. Any conflict with the character too easily becomes conflict with the player…yeah. Just feel out the reasons and if it’s an unhealthy relationship with fantasy vs reality, have a talk with them.
Yes, I'll make another character, but is it going to someone that fits in a higher level game, or am I going to cheat somewhat and skip levels? Just to make it fit in with the others?
While I absolutly agree with the idea about not assuming that rerolling is a necessary default everyone will have, I want to come back on the idea that a player ragequitting because he's frustrated that his character died would be worse (11:44). When that happens it generally shows a failure to clearly set expectations from the beginning, just like in the case you are describing.
The assumption on many D&D table is that character death is on the table, so much so that it is often overlooked when discussing the set up of the game and onboarding new players; but it is absolutly valid for a playe not to want that part of the experience. Like for anything else you juste have to make sure that everyone is on the same page, and if the rest of the table thinks that would break their own immersion in the game, then this is not the right table for him.
One particular difficulty is with players completly new to TTRPG, who might not see any problem with the concept of character death at the start of the game (when they have no emotional investment in the character ) but change their minds as they get to know their character. That's why, while necessary, sessions 0 aren't the be all end all of setting expectations, and there should be an open discussion about it all throughout the campaign.
I'm not sure what to think about this. It's never come up in my games and I hadn't really considered it until I saw this video. I think I see what you mean. Not wanting to come back to the game isn't necessarily a threat or a sign the game is bad. It is about narrative after all. And I can imagine that a replacement for a lost character can have a big act to follow. Or feel like something you're pigeon holded into (the party needs a rogue, or a healer etc.) You've given me a lot to think about. Thank you Mike :)
my DM once told us after we were kidnapped by drow slavers and thrown into some cages next week show up with a back up character ready tp go if you dont do it youll be a human fighter as a next character we escape the drow with our back up characters helping us to get out we get to a town and those characters scatter to the winds but now if a PC dies there is a seeded replacement with reason to be attached to the rest of the party if a death were to happen in the future
That’s a pretty good compromise :)
@@SupergeekMike didnt really work out for me becuase i wanted to switch to my back up instantly Arcane Trickster kobold > Assassin Rogue drow but hey he got a no ill hold them off moment and became a vampire's minion later so it was worth
There's a person in my discord gaming group that drops this kind of line fairly aggressively anytime the mere possibility of his character dying comes up tangentially. This has come up with the group rotating playing multiple campaigns with different members of the group serving as DM in each. Seems to be referring specifically the campaign that given character is attached to, but he's also very resistant to elaborating so it's all guesswork. He's the oldest person among us and we've been playing together for years and most of us have played previous editions of the game before our current group. It's kind of uncomfortable and confrontational, but mostly have to let it go since this player and others have seen military combat on top of having been in other life-or-death professions like emergency response.
...Character death has never actually happened, though. We all have an uncanny ability to survive the most ridiculous of situations (and/or have someone still alive with access to revival spells and diamonds on hand). It is kinda hard to die in 5E, at least after the first couple levels, but we've survived early levels in a few campaigns, too.
Have had people retire characters early to switch to something different. Especially with campaigns that were put into hiatus and rotated back into being active. Who DMs a campaign is based on if they have the extra free time for session prep at the time and who's available to play their characters.
This is an interesting thing to consider, it's good to point out that no everyone making this statement is being petulant or trying to rig the game. So long as its mentioned ahead of time then players should leave whenever they're done with that game.
Exactly!
Well timed. I almost feel like you are talking about Marisha, but obviously not lol.
Spoiler for the current season of CR ahead But it's so well timed since she said on the brand new episode of 4 Sided Dive that she's not making a new character right now. Currently her mood is that she's not interested in leaving her latest character behind no matter how many sessions she has to sit out. Obviously that could change but right now she is sticking to her guns about it.
which is fine since Matt gives them that option. plus she said Laudna will not be the same.
@@TheAciddragon069 all true. I just didn't think I had to specify since ultimately it was her choice. 😊
It has been very funny with some of my recent videos being oddly well-timed with what’s happening in CR lol
Even if it's not meant in a petty manner, I can still see it being potentially damaging. Because sub-consciously, the DM still doesn't want to kill them to remove said player. And, especially if it's someone who has never played before and is unsure if they wanna stick around, you definitely don't want to kill them because that could leave a sour taste, and you want them to experience a long, fulfilling campaign so they have fun and may return.
In cases like Bup-Bup, though, leaving is fine. When the group is already rag-tag and you set out to accomplish a goal, do it, then dip, I think that's probably the best scenario for leaving. But dying early into the campaign seems incredibly unfulfilling and you'd be leaving rather empty-handed.
It’s a tricky balance, for sure.
When mike says the air just kicked on, and your air just kicked on. 😳
That ad man!! Had me Rollin, Love it!!
It was an ultimatum. It's not a question of perspective. He decided alone the condition underwich he'd keep playing. This decision was final and not open to negotiation. That's the definition of an ultimatum. That's hard to deal with. Better not to.
Except they did negotiate and the decision wasn’t final. That’s something I said in the video. Also, it’s quite possible a player hearing “when we die, we make new characters” is ALSO hearing that as an ultimatum. If they didn’t know that’s what they were agreeing to when they started playing D&D, that can be a rude awakening and makes them feel like the experience they signed up for is not what they thought it was. It doesn’t mean the solution is the same every time a player says this, but I do think the first step is the same: ask the question before you even recruit them to the campaign, so you can tailor the style of your story toward the players’ preferences.
What about the player who does rage quit if their character dies? Or the player who does just flat out tell the DM and/or table they won't play if something bad happens to their character (not quitting a game after a specific pre-planned plot arc ends)? That is an ultimatum. And, its possibly unfair to the rest of the players (unless this is how the whole table sees the game, then more power to you, it's not my place, or anyone's place, to tell anyone how to have fun).
Because both of those scenarios are things that do happen, and I think that's where people are having an issue.
I'm not sure anyone has a problem with a player who only planned to play until they died IN SOME PRE-PLANNED STORY ARC (capitalized to point out the very specific nature of the example), especially if they let it be known (to the DM at least) beforehand, and then explains it to the table afterwards (not necessary, but probably a polite thing to do, so everyone knows no feelings are hurt). Further, someone telling the DM/table they will only play until their character dies because they aren't really interested, or don't know how interested, in D&D they are, is just not the same thing. In this circumstance, however, it's probably best for the individual player and DM to resort to the pre-planned short term story arc in the first example, and for the DM to let that player know they are free to change their mind, revise the story arc, or make a new character, if they decide they are interested in continuing. Or you can maybe retcon something if the player has grown attached to the player (which obviously happens), have the character be captured, make it a new quest, etc. (lots of options here).
I will agree that the issue is with player and table expectations. However, just knowing those player expectations isn't really the whole answer. If everyone at the game is ok with, and expects the possibility of, character death, except for one player who just says "nope, I'm immune" that's not fair to everyone else. And the person who needs to change their expectations or find someone else to play with is that individual player, not everyone else who is already in agreement. There's a lot of talk these days about older players telling newer players that they're playing the game wrong and how that is gatekeeping or abusive or whatever else (IT IS, PERIOD). However, I would argue that that goes both ways. An individual telling a group that they are having fun wrong is the same as a group telling an individual they are having fun wrong.
Not trying to be adversarial or disrespectful, but it feels like this video only acknowledged certain REASONABLE reasons to say you won't continue in a campaign if your character dies. But it very much glosses over why this idea can be objectionable, toxic, and problematic. And I think, although have no evidence other than anecdotal evidence, that the problematic reasons are far more frequent occurrences than the two (AGAIN COMPLETELY REASONABLE) examples discussed in the video (certainly online, maybe not so much in in person games, since those tend to be played by and amongst IRL friend groups).
Just the two cents from someone who doesn't matter. Again, not trying to be adversarial, I just feel like mentioning all of the reasons (acceptable and unacceptable) would have made for a more complete discussion of the issue.
40+ years and that's not anything I have ever encountered. I would like to think I would be understanding about it.
I'm weirdly in the opposite situation. I'm in a campaign that's had a lot of PC turn over so only me & one other player are still playing are original PCs (who are pretty linked story-wise). That plus other players not being super invested resulted in me getting a "if your character dies, the campaigns done" from my GM.
Oh wow haha yep that is the opposite scenario - sorry to hear that, that can be frustrating when the game group is so volatile like that
I love your channel and I'm so excited everytime I see you uploaded.
Thank you!
I may have accidentally done the ‘if my character dies, I’m done playing’ thing when I first started dnd. It was during a campaign where I was playing a warforged bloodhunter-
I had rolled him up randomly. Everything was randomized and he wasn’t the most optimized. His blood rite was lightning, so we just figured he attached wires he ripped out to his flail.
-and the dm had killed my character and made it where my character was under the bad guy’s orders and had no free will/a dmpc/a npc.
Well. We hadn’t had a session 0 really or talked about what would happen after my warforged ‘died’, so I left because I thought that the group, of at least 7, didn’t need me anymore and that the dm would called me over when my warforged was not under the bad guy’s control. (The dm had a copy of my character sheet, so he could have played the character.)
The next thing I know the dm is calling me over and asking if I wanted to make a new character. I asked him, “Why? Are we playing in a new campaign?” We had been filling the character sheets out by hand and it normally took me a while to fill them out, even with help. Plus, I wasn’t familiar with the idea of making a new character after the old one dying in the campaign. He was a bit puzzled by that question and I don’t think the campaign lasted long after that.
So, yea… I hope you have a great day.~ Bye.
Exactly, I think a lot of players (especially new players) just don’t know the expectations of their DM - and I’d argue that’s not on the players, but on DMs to get better about onboarding people and managing expectations
I'm liking yer videos more and more. Came here from the critical role episode analysis's
I've been reading DnD content, playing DnD video games, for 30 years now. I have only actually played in 3 real games of DnD, two of them since the pandemic began. In my current game, which I now DM but started as a player, listening to the old school players talk constantly about dying and rolling up a new character really sat poorly with me. As in, I was speaking privately to the DM about how such a cavalier attitude had me concerned I was going to be playing in a meat-grinder.
Especially in DnD 5e, character death is a very rare occurrence. I think old-school players are going to run into more and more of us folks who are here to tell our character's story, not to be "replaceable cog #16." The counter here is that it means the DM is being forced not to kill the character and, yeah, that's the price of admission. There was no mechanical reason Buppup died, after all, it was a choice her player made.
Back in 1E you could roll a new pc in 3 minutes if not a spell caster, 5 minutes if a spell caster due you picking or rolling for spells. But you only had Fighter-ranger-paladin, Cleric-druid, Thief -Assassin, monk, Magic User _illusionist, and occasionally Bard. Dual and multiclassing were more difficult if you RAW. Your magic load out and how you drew your PC is how you make your PC different. Since all 5th level thief had a base 50% to pick pocket before race adjustments.
I don't know how relevant this will be to the video, but the story of Bup-Bup reminds me of an issue I had in my own Curse of Strahd game. Also minor spoilers for CoS if anyone hasn't played it.
It was my first time Dming it, and one of the players wanted to play a Reborn Dusk Elf woman who wanted revenge on Rahadin. I agreed to this because I was new and I thought this would be a good way to include a recurring villain and tie into some of the other plot hooks. However, the player suffered hard from main character syndrome and would argue constantly with the party, who would rather have fun drinking wine after a job than brooding over the next stage of the journey. She also told me in private that she did this because she didn't trust the party and even said this publically while talking to NPCs. For context, she didn't trust the party because they stopped her from killing Rahadin the first time he showed up (what actually happened was she charged him like an idiot and got downed thanks to his screaming aura).
Eventually it got to a point where the other characters were getting vocal about how unlikable this Reborn was, so the player and I talked about it, and she agreed to swap her character and keep playing with a new one. However, the bakstory she gave me was awful and didn't fit with the setting at all. To simplify it, the Reborn Dusk Elf woman was actually a living Yuan-Ti woman this whole time who had been possessed by the spirit of a vengeful Dusk Elf, and used heavy makeup to fool everyone, even other Dusk Elves, into thinking she was one. Now the Yuan-Ti was going to regain control of her body and banish the spirit. I said no to this concept and asked her to make a new one that had nothing to do with the Reborn. She replied by quitting the game, saying that I was spitting on the memory of her Reborn and everything they had accomplished if she couldn't have a character tied to her past.
Honestly I think the main reason this happens is many people would be much happier playing an RPG that isn't D&D. I say this as an avid, lifelong player of D&D. It's my favorite game. And it seems to me many people want more narrative games where you can't die by accident. D&D isn't that game, unless you employ a lot of DM fiat.
To be clear, this isn't *wrong*, I just think it demonstrates the limitations created in the TTRPG space when D&D is so massive and sometimes pretends to be a more generic roleplaying system than it is
That’s part of it - D&D does assume that character death is the biggest potential consequence you can deal with. But if you are going to play D&D, I think this issue just has to do with whether or not the big fear of your game is whether or not death is the big danger. There’s nothing wrong with that being the biggest concern of your campaign, but if your campaign is more structured around corruption or unintended consequences, then death can be a less significant part of the campaign without you sacrificing any dramatic stakes.
Constructive criticism: I personally find the out-of-focus microphone very distracting. Also, the time travel still **chef's kiss**
Thank you!
And yes, the microphone is way better sound-wise but there’s not a great place to put it where it’s out of frame. My next patreon goal is still to get a new mic, ideally one that is powerful enough to sit out of frame and still pick up all the relevant audio.
I have a player that puts A LOT of thought into her characters for our long-term campaigns. We ran a series of oneshots between our first game (2 years long) and our second. She had no interest in those because, for her, the best parts of D&D are character-driven story moments.
I am a little worried, because the new party is comprised of two warlocks, an artificer, a rogue, and a fighter. No support caster, no healer, no revivify until level 9. I hope she would be willing to make a new character and continue playing with us, should her current one die, but I just don't know.
I think it would be good to discuss the possibility with her and how she feels about the possibility maybe.
It all depends on the reasoning. If someone just wants to "win" D&D then I'd say good riddance to them. If that person's a friend and not a rando, I'd talk with them.
I found the video interesting but when most people talk about this issue, they're talking about people being jerks, not someone who just feels like they've done their part.
It's the difference between quitting mid-shuft and an early retirement.
True, how people handle it is important, but it’s also important to remember that some players might not realize this is controversial, and to assume they’re operating in good faith and not being a jerk. That’s just a good rule of thumb in general
Geezer here...
Yep I am old. Ya "young yipper snappers" got some new ways of looking at it. If that's what trips your trigger go for it, have fun.
At a gut level, the temptation is. There's the door. Hope you find a group ya fit in. This one is not it.
Character death happens, we talked about that pre-sesson one. That's why you were told to consider what your *next* character will be. Want to play level 1 to 20, no plot armor kid. In over 4 decades I did it a half dozen times. Have played and had literally 10,000s of characters. Does no one give a heads up on this anymore?
Gaming on.
My first character hasnt died yet but i still have an idea for a second character. The group all play magic the gathering together so the campaign is set in ravnica
Nice!
I think you’re overlooking that this is basically demanding special treatment from the DM. And we all know if the player who demands that is the DM’s SO, they’re going to get it.
How is it “special treatment” to play with someone for as long as they’re willing to play? What’s the alternative, to not play with them at all? Who wins in that scenario?
@@SupergeekMike The only way you ensure that their character doesn't die is special treatment. Plot armor, usually. And how are other players supposed to feel if their characters can die, but someone else's can't. Especially if that player is the DMs partner?
@@HoosierJedi I never said you ensure the character doesn’t die. I said sit down with your players and discuss it like adults and figure out what everyone is comfortable with.
@@SupergeekMike The only way I can see to keep someone at the table after that is some sort of special treatment. If you have another idea, I'm listening.
@@HoosierJedi How about the second half of the video, where I told a story about a character dying and the player leaving the table, and everyone being fine with it?
But you’re partially right, I should make a video about the many ways to handle character death in games that don’t necessarily require a new character. I guess you’ll have to trust me that I DO have suggestions, and subscribe until I make that video.
While this has never occurred to me, I can understand that player's feelings. I take the RPing of DnD more seriously than this is a "mechanics TT game." If I don't have a PC that would suit the campaign, fit with the group, or no inspiration to create one let alone be invested in, it'd make no sense to continue to play, because all those problems will show fairly early and ruin the game for others.
There's players that treat their PCs like the sheets they are, but others get very invested in their PCs and their own enjoyment in immersion in the story. If they see no future in the game once their PC died, they have every right to leave.
Exactly, I think that’s more than fair
When you said you took another bouddoir photo session you mean the add shot, right hahaha. After watching you video I think I should talk to my players and see what are their thoughts (all of us are kinda newbies, me as a DM, them into TTRPG) so it could be helpful to have some insight just in case.
Never hurts to talk to your players and see where they stand on the issue 😁
And no, I actually took another session in the photographer’s studio ☺️
I have only one character that I would probably stop playing if he died, but it's okay. I'm confident it would be a deserved death, and I would still completely love to be in every session listening to my friends, and to learn where the story moves.
It's just that we're playing in a pretty specific homebrew, and the race/class limitations that are left are not specifically appealing to me. Besides, we're basically at the climax of the campaign, and getting someone new so late I think would feel jarring.
Man, I’m usually hoping my characters die so I can try one of the 300 other ones I’ve created…
I’m totally the same way!
I fall in the middle with this. It's really depends on the player and the character. As a DM, I've experienced players do this on both ends of the spectrum. There were jerk players who intentionally made bad choices and left when their characters died. Good riddance for those players because they weren't there for the group's enjoyment. I've had players who felt like they had a complete story and it was a good stopping point for them. No bad feelings about it and it was a good story they were a part of.
Certainly you always hope for the latter!
Tbh if I've spent 100s of hours investing in a character, I'd find something else to do on Friday rather than shoehorn in a new one. It'd suck for everybody to have to play around this new obstacle of a character.
I feel that, for sure