How common is a PC death in your campaigns?

[Jeff Wilder]

We've played 29 sessions of Jade Regent since 10/23/11, and there have been nine PC deaths. (Plus one that was a "scripted" heroic sacrifice for a player moving to the Least Coast.)

Four of those have been the direct result of singular massively bad tactical mistakes (not moving away from the full-attack of a Large white dragon; charging a Frostfallen Mammoth while having only 18 HP; moving into full attack range of the same mammoth even though the PC was an archer; and allowing one PC to bear the full attack of a hydra ... while holding an earth elemental gem, even).

Two were the result of horrendous luck (at 1st level, against an AC 20 fighter, landing two crits and a hit in three attacks; a cleric failing consecutive fairly easy Will and Fort saves).

Two were heroic deaths that allowed ultimate victory in the battles (same PC kept an ogre mage tied up, and then a level later, an ettin).

And one was just a battle that turned out to be significantly tougher than it seemed due to a glacier toad's home-field advantage.

So, excluding those four directly fatal massive tactical mistakes, there would have been five. But, you know, tactical mistakes do happen; God knows I make them, both as a player and GM.

A little less than one death per three sessions.

Enough to depress me a little.

[Jaelithe]

Kirth Gersen wrote:

When in doubt, Google.

Ah, yes. Read this more than once. Chick certainly has the commitment and conviction—which arguably means he should be committed directly after he's convicted.

And I did Google, Kirth, if not at extensive length. It referred me to bongs and plant disorders, among other subjects I didn't find applicable. Thus, I thought you might clarify, and thank you for doing so.

The occurrence I described in brief was profoundly unnerving. Perhaps others would not have been so moved by it, however.

(Heh. Kirth Gersen always reminds of me of Gern Blanston.)

[Jeremy Mac Donald]

In the last campaign I ran I was aiming for roughly 1 character death per level. That was considered overly lethal by the group. Another DM ran the next campaign and we went 12 levels without a character death. At this point the group revolted - The DM just would not let us die - it was insanely boring especially as he ran a combat heavy campaign.

Currently I'm going with roughly 1 death per 4 levels though I'm slightly above quota.

While I'm not picking a specific moment of death or targeting a specific PC what I am doing is adjusting difficulty. If I'm below quota then the campaign is not really hard enough and I start making things more challenging and if I am above quota then I'm going to dial things back a bit.

Worth noting that this really is a bit of a player and group decision. In my current group we have one player who is often a bit frustrated because he hates it when characters die - but he is an outlier - the rest of the group gets angry if they don't die at least every so often. At the moment I think I'm at about the right number for this group - it happens often enough that they are playing their best and fear death (and are not bored) but not so often that they are complaining about the campaigns lethality.

[TriOmegaZero]

Jeremy Mac Donald wrote:

...the rest of the group gets angry if they don't die at least every so often.

I would remind them that they have the ability to adjust the death frequency themselves by playing riskier or safer as needed. ;)

[Jeremy Mac Donald]

TriOmegaZero wrote:

Jeremy Mac Donald wrote:

...the rest of the group gets angry if they don't die at least every so often.

I would remind them that they have the ability to adjust the death frequency themselves by playing riskier or safer as needed. ;)

True but A) its possible for the DM to compensate for that and B) one should keep an eye on this sort of thing. Hard games foster teamwork - what we found happening was player griefing ("My character won't heal yours - I don't like your god" etc.). This makes things more challanging but at the cost of inter party feuding which can sometimes cause a bad taste for some players. In retrospect we'd have never gotten their if the game had not been so unchallenging.

[strayshift]

I don't directly disagree very often but if my players indulge in player griefing they know they will probably end up dead and I'm not particularly inclined to change that.
It must be bourn in mind however that we are all middle-aged guys who play on an off night from other responsibilities. So there is a level of maturity (did I just say that?) and commitment to making the session enjoyable. I don't think I have seen this current group seriously fall out with each other.

[Kirth Gersen]

Jaelithe wrote:

(Heh. Kirth Gersen always reminds of me of Gern Blanston.)

Steve Martin win!

And apologies for coming across as rather cavalier about the event -- in my mind, though, you witnessed two separate events (one trivial, the other tragic) that happened in close temporal proximity but which did not necessarily share a cause-effect relationship).

[LazarX]

Thomas Long 175 wrote:

Exactly what the title says. It was brought up in the "bloat" thread how common a pc death was and I wondered what a gm should generally aim for? I've got very little experience of my own to add despite 3 years playing because of unusual campaigns. So tell me what are you guy's experience with this?

A GM's goal should not be a certain amount of player deaths over a set of sessions. That's going into GM vs. Player mode which is probably the worst type of GM-Player setup that can happen. I've known GMs who were into that mode, my infamouse Ramapo GM boasted that he could kill of 25 percent of the table in each session and he generally did. Of course in that campaign, the players had actually evolved a style where they just mimeographed and numbered their characters as if they were Paranoia Troubleshooters.

In a proper campaign, GM's should challenge their players, and if they survive every one of them, that's not a failing of the GM. It's no trick for a GM to kill off players, after all you ARE the world, and they're just them.

[hogarth]

TriOmegaZero wrote:

I would remind them that they have the ability to adjust the death frequency themselves by playing riskier or safer as needed. ;)

In your game that may be true, but I've noticed quite a few GMs use "rubber band difficulty". I.e., weak opponents mysteriously become tougher and tough opponents mysteriously become weaker in order to match the GM's preferred difficulty level rather than the players'.

[TriOmegaZero]

I'm now imagining a group of players trying to get their PCs killed through increasing stupidity while the GM tries to scale his NPCs back, leading to a completely hilarious comedic session. I think there were some movies like that.

[Bill Dunn]

Deaths have been pretty rare over the last decade or so with the exception of one campaign:

3e-converted classic modules campaign (currently 13th level): 3
Shackled City (completed): 3
Council of Thieves (completed): 0
Skull and Shackles (currently 4th level): 0
Homebrew campaign (mixed levels with groups at 2nd, 6th, 12th): 5 (a 4 member TPK at 2nd level, 1 at 6th level)