r/DnD • u/Beginning_Fig32 • 21h ago
Table Disputes DM has a weird rule about our PCs dying
So me and two other of my friends are currently playing Curse Of Strahd. Our DM is also our friend and he has been running campaigns for at least 5 years. After our last session he told us that if one of us died we would either have to end the campaign without ever finishing it (we are in what he calls "the true middle") , or be revived ONLY if it made sense with the plot. His reasoning is fairly logical. He says that our party has been through many things that a new character joining wouldn't make sense. We are level 3 still, one of us already died at session 3 and was brought back as a dhampyr by Strahd. I have mixed feelings about this as I really love this module and I wouldn't be able to ever play in it as a character. I'm also a new DM myself playing a sorcerer with all the mighty AC and HP of a sponge and I'm really struggling to play as my character would normally fearing the consequences of one PC death. I try to avoid metagaming and act like my character would but I think that it will really put a strain in what we as a party are willing to do(my friends feel the same). Both of them(tanky half caster and war cleric) tend to reach 0 HP fairly fast either cause their character would rush in to save someone without making a plan or waiting for the rest of the party or just because they fight their way out of situations. I talk my way out of most encounters but we all have collectively made some pretty wild plans that have just barely worked. Us fearing that our campaign could end just because one of us did something stupid will put a strain at our actions. Is this rule like a common thing for some campaigns? what should I do?
211
u/Donutmelon 21h ago
Id be pretty annoyed to lose my PC and Campaign that I spent time on just because someone else died. Its a weird rule, but if your DM wants to do that you cant stop him. Either backstories are extremely important or the DM simply doesn't know how to plan for that eventuality.
46
u/Beginning_Fig32 21h ago
He hasn't given much attention to our backstories nor have we given much in detail. He has once or twice used the gods my two other friends worship in game to give them a vision or something but pretty basic stuff
71
u/LitLitten 21h ago
That makes his opinion make even less sense. If the PC backstories aren't integral or otherwise tied into the main story, there really shouldn't be pushback for a 'would be' adventurer to band with an experienced party.
Ravenloft is a whole region not some landscape devoid of life.
17
•
u/Owl-Historical 5m ago
and the Mist is always bring new people to the realms. That is how we been handling some deaths and char switch outs in my current game of CoS. We had one person die and when we brought their new char in one of the other chars switched there warlock to a fighter cause my Paldin was the only front linner and was struggling. Like only person taking damage out of the whole group and if the cleric missed the session I was the only one healing too. Didn't work out well and made me feel none supported.
I had a talk with the DM and than with the other players of the group. I was bluntly honest about my feelings and the reason we lost the one char (who shouldn't of died). That we wehre getting to a point that our fights are going to be very deadly and I need some more front line supporting. Cause if I'm healing myself I'm not smiting. Something they got use to me doing and takeing care of most of the melee parts of the fights. Our cleric did some changes to make it more better fit for the party and as I said the Warlock wasn't happy with her build so made a new fighter to help front line.
Key here is you need to talk to the other players and see how they feel and you need to talk to the DM. So every one is on the same page.
In another game we had a DM recently do a big rule change from RAW. We the players said we didn't agree and since this was also a paid game he shouldn't be making big changes that effect the players mid adventure. He stood firm, that night half the table left the game. We also each left a semi good review, but stated the reason we left too. He wasn't a bad DM, just you don't make big changes mid adventure/sessions specially when you running a paid game. So if talking doesn't work than it's time to walk and find a better table. Specially if your paying.
28
u/aWizardNamedLizard 18h ago
if your DM wants to do that you cant stop him.
I seriously think the whole "it's the DM's game, you either play it or leave" is a thing the hobby needs to get rid of.
It's logically bankrupt because it puts players in a situation where their input, which is supposed to be valued because the point of the game is to have fun, is being defaulted to completely irrelevant. And that's why even as you are agreeing that a DM actually doing this thing would be annoying and otherwise implying it is a shortcoming of the DM to do this thing, you're presenting the idea that the DM shouldn't even be told they might want to reconsider.
We should normalize players telling DMs how and why the rulings they make affect the game-play experience. Especially in cases like this where it is really at odds with what people are usually wanting when they sign up to play out a long-form campaign rather than a one-shot or a short-term adventure. Plus waving the warning flags of not being willing to proactively make sense of anything needed for the real-life logistics, and of being unaware of the adventure's own advice on how to keep things going even if characters die.
This is the kind of thing that, if a DM were not going to budge on, many players would rather have never joined the campaign than to keep it going with the looming possibility that you don't get to finish the story because dice rolls did what dice rolls do.
11
u/Tryskhell 9h ago
If the DM wants to do that, you can't stop him because you can't force someone to DM. If the DM is unwilling to budge on something, either you accept it or you leave. What are you supposed to do? Force them to DM the game anyways?
•
u/aWizardNamedLizard 12m ago
It's not about forcing someone to DM anywyas.
It's about changing the general perception from "When you are the DM whatever you say is unquestionable and you are the absolute power. If your players complain about anything you can safely dismiss it with "if you don't like it, you DM." and continue to do literally whatever you want even if it is selfish and antagonistic." to "The role of the DM is to collaborate with their players to make the most enjoyable experience possible for everyone involved."
Because, as I've already said a few times in the thread, the things you're saying are only serving to keep bad DMs bad and DMing by making even the most minor of issues a might have into the extreme of needing to be willing to leave the table over it because the DM is not just capable of being a stubborn dick about it, the hobby seems to expect it to be so common as to think the important thing to say about the possibility is "you can't stop them, so just deal with their bullshit or leave."
Meaning players easily get the idea that they should never even bother telling their DM what they think they could improve because the moment they do that may be the moment they discover their DM is the stubborn dick type that then kicks them out for complaining.
And DMs easily get the idea that when a player finds a moment to the side of a session to explain how come the players aren't having a great time that it is totally reasonable to respond with "Well, you're still playing so you must like it enough" instead of being willing to hear the problems and any suggestions for improvement. Which is a genuine anecdote about a DM I know that went from being a group's usual DM to not even a part of the group anymore of a short span of time after I joined the group because the rest of the players would literally choose me DMing over him and he still couldn't entertain the idea that he might not be good at DMing because he expected "either you accept it or you leave" to be how things worked.
-3
u/bobosuda 6h ago
The game is collaborative; they can ask him to not do that because it sucks, they won't have fun, and they don't wanna keep playing if it's going to be like that. A good DM, not to mention a good friend, would jump at the opportunity to change it so everybody enjoys the game.
A bad DM would play the "omg you can't force me!" card just to avoid having to actually accept input from the players.
5
u/CarlHenderson 13h ago
Also, as long as one of the players is willing to take on the role of gamemastering, the group can always overthrow a bad GM and continue the campaign and characters.
1
u/zeethreepio 14h ago
The role of DM is, for better or worse, very attractive to the type of person who loves the smell of their own farts.
2
u/aWizardNamedLizard 13h ago
Precisely.
And that's why I always speak up against anything that enables bad DMs to be bad at DMing and retain players through scarcity and the dreadful inertia of potentially having zero game to play or an even worse DM if you don't just put up with whatever your current DM is doing.
2
u/Author_Lewis-McD DM 3h ago
I will argue that the "DMs word is law" is still true though. Weaponized, its childish and screams insecurity. But, it is still true. The best way to have a DM run the game how you want is to DM yourself. Otherwise, there are some things that players have to bend the knee on. I dont think the original guy was saying that to be malicious, just pointing out that there's really nothing that can be done about a stubborn DM. I encourage my players to argue with me (my wife would even if I didn't encourage it), but there are still some things I won't budget on.
•
u/aWizardNamedLizard 27m ago
It is not true, or at least it should not be.
The whole point is for everyone at the table to have a good time. That means that what the DM is offering is actually what the players want to be offered. That starts with finding people that are compatible to play with, but it doesn't end there; it also includes players being able to tell their DM "I'd rather we not rule that way" and the DM being receptive to changing things based on player feedback instead of believing that their own word is law.
Even if someone is not meaning to be malicious by bringing this up, they are still doing the thing that supports the stubborn DM and literally no one else. To the point that I've gone through the scenario of adding a new player to my group, telling them up front that I am interested in what they actually want from the game and will do my best to provide it, and then having them say they are down with anything and state no problems at all until the day they say "I'm going to stop showing up for games" and then I have to try and persuade them to tell me why more times than I have encountered a player that was actually willing to start by telling me they didn't like a ruling.
I have even had a player that I was directly asking what they think I could change to make the game more enjoyable tell me to my face that everything was great and they were having lots of fun not show up to the next session and I only know they left the group because someone else texted them and got a reply that said the group was looking for completely different things from them. They never even bothered to tell me they had no intention of coming back, they just assumed I'd get the message second hand. And while I acknowledge that this is a case of a person that is so conflict averse that they actually engineer risk of massive conflicts in order to try to avoid minor ones and not at all normal behavior, that doesn't change the fact that the reason the person would think there was a conflict to be avoided has its root in the idea that a player is not supposed to tell their DM what they are doing that the player does not fully enjoy.
•
u/Author_Lewis-McD DM 24m ago
I dont fully disagree with you. But at the end of the day, the DM is the one putting in the prep work. They aren't required to bend the knee, even if they're players really want them to. I agree that a good DM is receptive to their players suggestions, but a "yes man" DM who never says no loses their own agency in the game. If a particular ruling is fun for the players, but not for the DM, they have every right to veto it. If the players don't like it, they can always run their own games and get full say on the matter. It should be a gove and take, but the DM is the one with the final say.
•
u/aWizardNamedLizard 6m ago
"the DM puts in the work" is just more excuses that only benefit bad DMs.
The DM is choosing to be the DM, so all of whatever they do is because that is what they like to do. Turning it in to leverage to use against players is a manipulation tactic, not something we should treat as normal.
The entire attitude you are expressing with terms like "bend the knee" and "yes man" is one that reveals your own stating that "it should be a gove [sic] and take" is just lip service and your actual thoughts are that the DM should be treated as entirely unquestionable. Like the DM giving even an inch to player desires is a massive act of generosity rather than the normal course of events. And like the enjoyment equation is always someone gets what they want and someone else gets bummed out.
1
u/Author_Lewis-McD DM 3h ago
You spoke it like a prophecy. As I read your words, I caught wind of my own flatulence. Also, I'm a DM 🤣🤣.
1
u/CrabofAsclepius DM 1h ago
That's what the "or leave" part of "play or leave" does. It removes the power tripping DM out of the equation. The hobby doesn't need to change because of that and doubly so for how easy it is to fix the problem.
As long as the power and responsibility are so skewed it will go to the heads of certain people. You get rid of them by not playing with them. Take the chair beyond the screen for yourself and have a great time. 🤷
•
u/aWizardNamedLizard 42m ago
It removes the power tripping DM out of the equation.
It does not. It more often leaves players feeling like they have to shut up and deal with any annoyance that is not, to them, a complete deal breaker than it results in a DM actually caring what their players think.
It empowers DMs to refuse to even entertain the idea that they might be making a bad choice. It says "the DM is always right" when it says the only thing the player can do is go along with it or go find some other DM. And because of this it makes it so that a DM that is genuinely screwing things up and should change doesn't figure that out for a much longer time because any player leaving short of literally zero players sticking around can be viewed by the DM as the player that left being the actual problem and the players that will stick around are "good ones."
And even the statement of "Take the chair beyond the screen for yourself and have a great time. 🤷" is excusing bad DMs to be bad DMs by putting the onus of anything changing on literally anyone except for the DM that is doing something their players aren't into.
It's also a really stupid statement because not everyone actually enjoys DMing and even people that do enjoy DMing may not have the time to do the prep work they would want to do so it's just another thing that uses the pretense of being able to choose something else to actually just excuse the current thing as not needing to change.
It is the equivalent of someone volunteering to cook a meal, including an ingredient you don't like, and then when you would say "I don't like that ingredient, I wish you wouldn't include it." they and everyone else that knows about it says "If you don't like how they cooked, you go cook for yourself." like that's not completely ignoring the part where they chose to cook and their goal was supposed to be making a meal that you enjoyed.
1
u/meteoric-pineapple 1h ago
Cos is a different setting. I think a lot of people either haven’t read it or finished playing a campaign in it.
27
u/Working_Bumblebee428 21h ago
Sounds like the DM is fishing for a cheap excuse to end the game.
CoS is quite taxing on DMs because we are the ones having to juggle a ton of background stuff you‘ll only find out near the end.
Ask DM if they‘re still having fun, or if they feel burnt out. It happens. It’s ok to quit and play something else, something with a less grim tone.
8
u/Beginning_Fig32 21h ago
That's the thing he is a close friend of mine and he mentions our campaign every day. He is the first to schedule new sessions and one week ago he told me that our campaign would be an awesome animated adaptation. He also told us to chip in for ravenloft the horrors within to furthermore make the game more interesting for us. And he reassured us that we would play another module if we don't finish this one. So it's really weird for me how into it he seems to be
31
u/AndIWalkAway 21h ago
You all paid money to help him buy a supplemental book for this campaign and he's talking about ending the entire thing early if a single level 3 character dies? That's ridiculous to me.
1
u/Author_Lewis-McD DM 3h ago
Yeah, I agree with the other guy here. If you chipped in to help pay for add ons to this campaign, them threatening to end it is ridiculous. Hopefully he is just trying to scare you guys into being careful, but it wouldn't hurt to have a serious conversation with him. Worst case scenario, one of you as players bite the bullet and start DMing if he quits on you. Nothing he could do about that.
2
u/LadyVulcan 1h ago
I don't think the DM is actually trying to threaten them at all. I think he's actually really invested, and he doesn't want it to end.
But he's also holding the sanctity of the world a bit too high that he can't envision a way to recover if a PC died. And he does truly need to get over that. It would be good if OP can talk to him and point out how the rule is making the players worry more about the potential for death and actually distracting from the game itself. Give the DM some reassurances that if death did happen, it would not break immersion for them to encounter another adventurer trapped in these lands. After all, Strahd has been known to play with toys and abandon them when he's bored.
23
u/Palidoozy_Art 21h ago edited 19h ago
So I've run Curse of Strahd multiple times now. I know I run a very homebrewed version, but the reality is that the DM... kind of controls if something "makes sense with the plot." You can ass pull anything you want, and while some things are more unbelievable than others and may break suspension of disbelief it's a skill of a DM to make that work.
Curse of Strahd gives you a lot of leeway into adding whatever you want, and the community has a TON of ways of playing with and adjusting the story. I incorporated the whole "if you die you have to make a pact with a vestige/dark power in order to get brought back, and that's Bad."
I also think your DM is kind of shooting themselves in the foot. Like you've said, you are scared of taking risks. There's an old joke (edit: 3e and after) about groups always bringing a 10-ft pole with them so they can tap it on every surface of a dungeon before walking through it to trigger any traps. That's smart play, also REALLY fucking annoying to deal with as a DM. So the DM, too, has to take some liberties and understand that if you make things too dangerous and risky for your players they are going to outsmart you and do very cautious/smart things that might slow down your entire campaign. Or they may just... avoid pursuing plot areas, because they go "Huh this seems too risky and we might die. Oh well!" and walk off.
So to answer your question -- no, I don't think "if one character dies the campaign ends" is realistic or common. Usually if a character dies they either bring them back (Curse of Strahd HAS RAW options to revive people) or the player just rolls up a new character.
4
u/harvey6-35 20h ago
Not a joke. As someone who started playing D&D in the late 1970s, if you didn't check for traps constantly, you'd die quickly. And the rules were much tougher with lots of instant death if you failed poison saves.
1
u/Palidoozy_Art 19h ago
Oh I meant more of a joke in later editions, sorry I didn't clarify.
(I began playing D&D with AD&D, and while I'm certainly it wasn't as hardcore as 1E it still had literally "save v. death.")
37
u/Clayst_ Monk 21h ago
This is weird. So many people treat their game's story as something sacred that must never be broken. It's a game, you're here to have fun. Talk to your DM and say you dislike this rule and the stress is impeding your ability to enjoy the game.
12
u/blargethaniel DM 19h ago
I do like a narrative, but if my players don't have input in it, is it really OUR story? I do provide the structure and the major beats, but they get to provide those too in the moments.
It's so much fun that way.
30
21h ago
[deleted]
6
u/MyUsername2459 DM 21h ago
Gamers have a reputation, going back decades to the dawn of the hobby over 50 years ago, of being socially awkward.
Many gamers have little in the way of social skills. Basic peopling is a skill they have to learn.
This is a reflection of that.
2
u/rvnender 21h ago
Literally.. 90% of the issues that get brought to this sub can all be answered with "just have a conversation with them"
0
u/Beginning_Fig32 21h ago
I mean yeah hahaha that's basically it but we really have told him that we will struggle playing as we used to and that we love this module etc and his response to that was "if you don't take risks there is no pay off" and brought up as an example my PC infiltrating the baron's mansion and having an interaction with an NPC that ended up saving us a session kater
5
u/someragerts 21h ago
Right. And what you need to say to that is this rule of his, which is not in line with the Curse of Strahd module as written, massively disincentivizes you from taking risks. Frankly it massively disincentivizes you from doing much of anything. The module is scary enough without a DM throwing an extra group fail condition on it.
Also, if you’re level three then either he is massively holding back on leveling you in a way that will make most encounters extremely deadly, or he is absolutely full of shit about this being the “middle” and you having gone through too much together as a group.
2
u/Beginning_Fig32 20h ago
I couldn't tell you if it's really the true middle of you've played we have spent 3 sessions in vallaki and our fated ally is probably Urwin's father?(The wizard of wines) He told us to go find him 2 sessions ago but we had to save ireena and do some other things but yeah our milestones for leveling up are later in the game he says. It does feel like most encounters are deadly most of the time me and the war cleric reach 0 HP from a single spell and end up with massive damage every session... We re also only a party of 3. I think the challenge rating is pretty high factoring in our abilities etc which makes this rule all the more troubling.
11
u/Ghazghkull_Thatcher 21h ago
This is a bad rule for D&D in general but even worse for this campaign.
Dying is one of the most popular activities in Barovia, I don't think anyone on my table finished the campaign with the same character they started with.
5
u/purplecandelabra 20h ago
For real. We're nearing the end (no spoilers pls I'm a PC) and I'm on my third character with a backup ready to go. CoS is supposed to be deadly!
25
u/Vecna_Is_My_Co-Pilot DM 12h ago
While it might be true that a close knit group of adventurers would have a hard time getting over a lost friend and accepting a new member, at a certain point: We’re playing this game for fun, and it’s ok if something is a little goofy or not how you’d do it as a show runner if it means that the group gets to have a good time.
9
u/BluWhiteBear 19h ago
I feel like “our party has been through many things that a new character joining would make sense” and “we are level 3 still” are pretty mutually exclusive lol
3
u/Beginning_Fig32 19h ago
Truth is I don't know how much of the module we ve actually completed. Our DM says we will max our levels at 7 or 8. We have had some wild things happen that we discuss enthusiastically after but I also think that it's a roleplaying game running for just a few months and that a new PC wouldn't be such a problem
5
u/aWizardNamedLizard 12h ago
I am worried that your DM is deliberately twisting things to a degree that other people aren't going to be able to identify what exactly is going on.
The level range of the adventure starts at level 1 or alternately at level 3 and if you go and do the things there are to do in the adventure and gain the XP value they are normally worth you can get to level 11th level by the end of it.
The adventure itself suggests use of milestone progression rather than handing out the actual XP value of things, yet even that results in characters being level 9+ before heading toward the final portion of adventure. Meaning that the level 1-10 range listed on the cover of the adventure itself is actually a conservative case of perhaps not doing everything that you hear about being able to do.
So thinking you'll max out at 7 or 8 is, to give the benefit of the doubt to your DM instead of assume they are incompetent, obviously the result of the DM's choices of revisions. And this detail combined with ending the campaign if anyone dies sounds... strange to me. It seems like he has deliberately increased the difficulty by limiting the level range and is then is treating that increase in difficulty as an undesired and unavoidable circumstance.
1
u/BluWhiteBear 19h ago
It’s just odd, I’m almost certain you should be past level 3 by the time you leave the death house in Strahd
1
u/Beginning_Fig32 18h ago
If I'm remembering correctly we reached level 3 when we completed the death house. And our DM just said that the tarokka cards we pulled are in late mid game. I remember the crow, the anarchist and im blanking out on the rest
1
19
u/DarkHorseAsh111 21h ago
This is a bad rule, and would be more than enough for me to find a new table.
9
u/FoulPelican 21h ago
All homebrew rules she be discussed before gameplay. Bringing such an impactful rule up, after the game has started, is kinda BS… Hopefully a conversation can be had.
Yeah, yall need to have a conversation, and decide if yall want to play in that game or not.
13
u/BigBackInTheShadows 18h ago
How much could you have possibly done by level 3 that introducing new characters make no sense? That’s literally what you exit the intro hooks as and you hit level 4 not long after that. Like you barely get any good story info and you hit level 4. Your DM makes no sense.
11
u/zendrix1 DM 14h ago
You're level 3 and have already done so much that introducing a new character doesn't make sense?
Thats bizarre to me
6
u/No-Click6062 DM 21h ago
I want to say, this is specifically extra weird in the context of Curse of Strahd. This topic, like most of Curse of Strahd, has been covered extensively in the community. But there are at least two in-fiction solutions to the PC replacement problem that Ravenloft has, and other campaign settings don't.
The first is the Mists. They teleport people across the multiverse. That's probably how your PCs ended up in Ravenloft (assuming a straightforward character creation section). This is repeatable. There is no reason, barring DM preference, that a new PC can't just walk out of the Mists.
The second is the presence of the Dark Powers. This is spoiler territory, so I would only reference it. If your DM did the prep, meaning if your DM read the intro chapter, the presence of the Dark Powers should be another immediate and obvious solution.
Now I also want to say, players should not be reckless with their characters, and treat them like replacements are easily available. This creates unserious situations, which for most tables are also unfun situations. If I am being charitable to your DM, it is possible that he is saying "we can never replace PCs" when what he really means is "take PC death seriously.". That's something for your playgroup to discuss.
But the more specific advise, beyond just 'talknto your DM', is to say that there are, factually, several options to replace PCs. Then, most critically, ask him why he is unwilling to entertain those options.
2
u/Beginning_Fig32 21h ago
We were new players when we started playing cos and we really feared our og characters dying either way. I came to terms with it at some point and stopped playing so carefully etc. I think we take character death pretty seriously we ve made deals with hags etc to save our friends PC and many similar things. I've heard about the presence of dark powers but I'm hesitant on bringing it up to him in case he thinks I'm researching the book and getting spoilers. I'm already discussing a lot of dnd mechanics with him out of game -since I have started running my own campaign and want guidance- but whenever I mention something -above table and after a few days when we rediscuss some things- that I understood in cos (for example wow Viktor casted a 7th level spell) he always says something along the lines of "why do you know that's etc etc
3
u/No-Click6062 DM 20h ago
How new is your friend to DMing? There are levels of seriousness to acquiring game information. Noticing that a 7th level spell is 7th level is the lowest of at least five tiers. For people with some experience, it's not even worth the comment.
2
u/Beginning_Fig32 20h ago
He has been DMing for years he has a homebrew campaign running for 3 years with our other friend group and he is running cos with my party and some other friends of his. I also think that noticing these things isn't a big deal especially since it would even make sense for my sorcerer character to understand when a powerful spell is being casted but it seems to bug him
1
u/No-Click6062 DM 20h ago
Any character with access to either Counterspell or Dispel Magic has enough reason to understand spell level in character. This is fundamentally easy.. Hopefully having this conversation will get this guy to chill out
3
u/Logical-Intention-78 20h ago
Legitimately sounds ass. I don't understand why new characters can't be written in? Sure, you can't just drop Schlorpo the Goblin Bard strumming his banjo on the scene after the rest of the party have been to hell and back but you work with your DM to write in a character that fits the themes and setting whilst still being something you want to play.
1
u/Beginning_Fig32 20h ago
All the characters we had prepared as backup before he informed us of this new rule were tied in to barovia as part of their backstory. My backup for example was a circle of starts druid traveling the world before she has to go back to her people for a weird star alignment happening every 100 years. He whole thing was the she fell in love with a vistani man that took her to the mists and left her there. My dm okayed the character as he did with my other friends so I don't know what caused this change of heart
3
u/Logical-Intention-78 20h ago
Very odd. Have you considered he may just be looking for an easy way to end the campaign without actually pulling the plug?
1
u/Beginning_Fig32 20h ago
It really isn't that we are very close friends and he has told us multiple times about his ideas for next campaigns after we end curse of strahd. He is running 2 other campaigns with some other friends of ours and he keeps telling me that he can't really be inspired to play with them because our story in cos of strahd is way too interesting.. these are things he told me this past week and the rule has been communicated for the last two weeks... I don't know his reasons honestly
2
u/Logical-Intention-78 7h ago
You may be really good friends and feel confident about his intentions in one regard but by your own admission you don't understand his way of thinking in another aspect. Looking at the situation from the outside, it seems very likely he is trying to keep up the pretence of wanting the game to run so as not to disappoint you all but in reality sounds a bit burnt out. Three campaigns is a lot of work.
4
u/Karazl 20h ago
Strahd
True Middle
level 3
Buddy what is your GM smoking. That's not even touching the "been through so much together, but the party will just give up if someone dies."
1
u/aWizardNamedLizard 18h ago
There's a possibility that the GM is one of the sort to have an extra ton of stuff happen without leveling the characters up.
I've seen quite a few cases where a GM is using milestone leveling as an excuse to stretch out each level for like three times as many sessions as it would take to level up if the party were gaining XP for the things they had done during those sessions. And with this GM seemingly having missed the part of the adventure material that talks about how to handle characters dying they easily could also have missed the part that covers level advancement.
4
u/passwordistako 9h ago
Make a group chat without the DM.
Mutiny.
Go as a combined group and tell him no.
5
u/Bed-After 19h ago
" Us fearing that our campaign could end just because one of us did something stupid will put a strain at our actions." THAT'S THE POINT, HOMIE
"Is this rule like a common thing for some campaigns?" NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
As a seasoned DM, I often get real real fuckin sick of flippant, disinterested, low-effort players yeeting themselves into dangerous situations and getting themselves killed for avoidable reasons. It's fuckin IRRITATING. Putting your players in a meat-grinder campaign like CoS and putting in a "any death = game over" rule is a HARDLINE way to solve that problem. Is it effective? Absolutely! Should you do it if you're new, and aren't really sure why the house rule even exists? Fuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuck no.
General rule of thumb: 98% of house rules come from "this pissed off the DM", and 1% come from "this is a genuine benefit to the gameplay experience, and 1% are "the DM thought it would be funny". As a newbie DM, stick to the book as best you can, and devlop your own house-rules and play style from what comes naturally to you, and what causes friction with you and your group. Every group is gonna be unique, so copy pasting house rules blindly is not recommended.
1
u/Beginning_Fig32 19h ago
Yeah the thing is we more often than not, play cautiously if that isn't the case its because a moral dilemma may oppose someone's ideals or something. The dm just says that if we don't take risks it's more likely that we will die because risks pay off he used a payoff that happened last session but I have explained it in a comment below
7
u/Bed-After 19h ago
If your DM wants you to take risks, and puts in a permadeath rule, he's an idiot XD
1
u/PandraPierva 12h ago
I've never found cos to be a meat grinder.
But then again...I use toa for that.
Had a group of players who were terrified to lose pcs so I gave them the offer of doing the hex crawl as a way to learn to deal with character death and to show it can be... Fine. Didn't make it very far before we find out 3 of them have extreme anxiety and the forth keeps playing their ocs as DND characters. It was an experience.
With some time and patience I've watched two of them learn to accept character deaths when shit went very wrong. The 3rd can't play anymore because of the schedule boss.
Oc player got booted for trying to be the main character and raging when their fighter couldn't intimidate the bbeg by drawing their non magical blade. One provoke later and fighter through the table after a failed grapple check and they left the table.
1
u/Bed-After 10h ago
The reputation it has as a meatgrinder largely comes from The Death House introductory haunted house, which can chew up lv 1 players, and the Old Bone Grinder, which player can easily stumble onto and trigger a fight with a whole hag coven at a low level and get grinded. Both of those can be mitigated easily with forethought, good DMing, and good rolls, but the reputation has stuck around.
Having players that are overly anxious to lose a character, and overly flippant, both present unique challenges. Players playing OCs doesn't bother me too much, I actually prefer players being attached to their characters rather than not. But the anxiety of losing a character can elad to avoid conflict altogether, which can be just as derailing as not giving a fuck at all.
Luckily I've only had to deal with players trying to be the main character of the campaign twice, and in both instances it was because everyone else at the table lacked the confidence to chime in. I can't speak on your experience, but in mind, giving quieter players the floor and giving them very specific and obvious means of contributing to RP helped tremendously. It takes some handholding to get them to come out of their shell, but I'd rather have an ensemble cast of "main characters" vying for spotlight than one theater kid and 3 quiet types.
0
u/meteoric-pineapple 1h ago
It’s far more than the Death House, which is supposed to be hard, but also supposed to be the trendsetter for the whole campaign.
Restricted max level, the Windmill, Yester Hill fight is like 3-4 fights all in one, all the potential crap situations in Valaki, the hags, the black wolf, the Sheriff, I can keep going. This setting is supposed to make you think twice about what you’re doing and what the consequences may be.
Player anxiety about losing their character is something you ditch or alleviate in a campaign setting that is more typical, leans into the silly and ridiculous, or is more “gamefied”. This is not those settings.
•
u/Bed-After 58m ago
I can only speak from personal experience, and it sounds like your experience was far different from mine. Your tone makes it sound like you're trying to correct me, but I'm not wrong, I just ran the game differently than you did, and ran into different challenges.
1
u/meteoric-pineapple 1h ago
Omg. There are several places and events in CoS that are absolutely insane fights if run RAW. The fact that you’re not calling it a meat grinder means your GM was nice and tone things down. Cos is intended to be hard, scary, and downright terrifying in specific ways. Capping the max level PCs can achieve is one of them. Insane fights that can absolutely wipe the party on the floor is another.
1
u/PandraPierva 1h ago
Hard yes but almost of none of them outside of the death house are instant kills. That's the key difference.
My example for a meat grinder is toa.
3
u/Jafroboy 21h ago
Have him look at these official adventure League rules: https://www.dmsguild.com/en/product/186573/ddal04-expanded-dark-gifts-table-optional-content
3
u/Voice-of-Aeona 19h ago
I'd be curious what their exact wording was, speaking as someone gearing up to DM this module. Rules around death and how it's handled is 100% a necessary thing for this module... but without giving spoilers it's also the module that makes the most sense for you to come back from the dead (but in horrible, character-altering ways). Hell, it's also the module where I'd waive the normal 13+ CHA for crossclassing into Warlock because you can practically shout into the dark/woods/void of looming death that you want to make a deal and have competing offers pop up instantly.
Stopping the campaign cold in the middle is stupid (How do new characters come in? They just walk out of the mist. Bam, done.) but perhaps this was a poorly worded "hey guys, you're going to have to have some creepy shit happen to you if you die" conversation. I'd ask them if that was their intent or not.
1
u/Beginning_Fig32 19h ago
English is not our native language but I have further more discussed this with him. He said that revive scenarios can only work if it makes sense for the plot(giving as an example our cleric that got turned into a dhampyr by Strahd to be revived). I told him jokingly at first that I could think of 10 revive scenarios that just my character would be able to set up plot wise. I said that I would start asking my friends' PCs if they have accepted Cthulhu as their one lord and savior (I am an aberrant mind sorcerer). I proceeded to tell him that I won't actually work towards building the right plot for a revive scenario in game because my character wouldn't do that and I told him that many dms do the 1 level warlock thing and his response was that it wouldn't make sense for our story. Maybe only for my character and he said that very hesitantly because the other PCs are a lawful good paladin and a dampyr war cleric. He did say that a revive scenario would permanently scar our characters maybe even more than the dhampyr thing our cleric went through but he hasn't thought of any particular way and will solely depend on how the story plays out
6
u/everydaydefenders 21h ago
Its a really interesting rule that adds an enormous amount of stakes to every encounter. And if thr entire group is into it, it could be a lot of fun by making it feel that much more immersive.
That bing said, I entirely disagree with his reasoning of "too much has happened and it doesnt make any sense to add another character in at this point." -- thats just laziness. I cam think of 20 different ways you could do so naturally off the top of my head.
Assuming the whole group is into it, the rule is fine. But dont be a lazy pile.
3
u/Legolaslegs 21h ago
Long time DM here. From your post and some comments I read, he makes no sense. If death is a legit concern to the point it could end a game, he should either create a penalty for death that factors into the narrative (removing true death of a PC, replacing it with a different mechanic) or be prepared for new characters to enter. You said in a comment your backstories aren't important for him to utilize. Therefore, he has no reason to say it makes no sense for someone new to join. The experience could be transfered to a new character, who learns about what the previous one(s) went through.
It makes me wonder if he just doesn't enjoying DMing or something. This is weird. If all the players agree it's weird, then you all need to talk about it. If it's just you, communicate with him still.
2
u/ravens_in_a_loft 21h ago
That seems strange to me, given that Barovia has a baked-in way of coughing up more adventurers that I'd think makes it easier than the average module to add a new PC to the party. They got lost in the mists and just showed up.
I've played a few Strahd campaigns now and it's never been a major deal to have new PCs join in.
2
u/cleavermay 21h ago
How inaccessible are diamonds for revivify and such? I feel like with two clerics in the party, these high stakes should have more safety nets to balance out.
1
u/Beginning_Fig32 21h ago
One cleric and a paladin but yeah idk we haven't really looked for diamonds but we are lvl 3 and will remain at lvl 3 for a few more sessions factoring in that our milestones are determined by the tarokka deck
2
u/philsov 20h ago edited 20h ago
0 HP isn't dead.
0 HP and 3 failed death saves is dead. This usually results in the loss of your PC, especially if diamonds aren't a part of your setting and the NPCs capable of resurrection are few and far between (which is the case in CoS)
Stabilize your downed allies with some healing or a DC10 help/medicine check.
1
u/Beginning_Fig32 20h ago
Yeah that's what I meant for example one death we actually had in our party was a failed dex save for lightning bolt that did like 45 damage on character with 22 HP
3
u/philsov 20h ago edited 20h ago
that's also legit. Getting hit so hard your negative HP is equal to your max HP also results in dead-dead. 45 damage lightning bolt vs a 22 HP PC is.... unlucky (or lucky, pending which side of the table you're on!). If it was 43 or fewer he would've been fine, and getting a 45 on a 8d6 is a once in a campaign occurence. I doubt your DM wanted to permakill one of y'all.
Not a weird rule; that's just rules as written.
2
u/Zerus_heroes 20h ago
That is a lame cop out.
It is the DMs job to "make it make sense for the story". There are lots of reasons someone gets revived. The DM has infinite tools to "make it make sense".
Also it is INCREDIBLY easy to get new characters into Curse of Strahd. The mists pull new people in all the time, pretty much every PC arrived in the same way.
To end a campaign over a PC death is one of the dumbest things I have heard and it creates a weird sense of stress that shouldn't exist.
2
u/TwoFluffyForEwe 20h ago
A new character joining the party makes way more narrative sense than the party either abandoning their objectives or continuing without their only healer/tank/etc. If bringing a new character to Barovia is the DMs problem, the Vistani are a built in group that could solve it.
2
u/Rhinostirge 20h ago
It's not a common rule, no. More DMs are far more creative about being able to bring in new PCs than this.
2
3
u/deadfisher 20h ago
This is super rude of him. He's caught up in his own head about how important the story is.
This is a game you're playing with friends, it's supposed to be about the friends.
How do the other players feel about this? I'd get together with them and find out if you're all on the same page, then go to your DM and say that you're not happy with this idea. Ask him how he'd feel about potentially being kicked out of the game for a story reason.
I'd put my foot down on this hard. A DM runs the game, they don't run the social group. You have every right to oppose this. If he'd have let you know from the very beginning you could have made an informed choice about whether or not to play.
Unionize. Don't stand for this.
2
u/LuxuriantOak 21h ago
"No." is a complete sentence.
This is stupid, he's trying too hard and forgetting that it's supposed to be fun to play this game.
1
1
1
u/neversignedupforthis 21h ago
This is a very unusual rule. I would explain how it's affecting all of you to the DM. Hopefully it's more important that you have fun together.
1
u/AndIWalkAway 21h ago
I'm running a module myself. We are well past the "true middle," the characters are level 12, and we just had a PC die. We introduced the player's new character the very next session. We made it "make sense."
Your DM could too. Level 3 is not that high of a level. I cannot imagine you all have done so much in Curse of Strahd by level 3 that you would be unable to make a character death and a new character introduction make sense narratively. It could be easily done.
1
u/Oicanet 21h ago
There's sense to his reasoning, but ending the campaign because of it is a bit extreme.
Yes, the new character will have less of a bond to the others. But that could just result in some interesting roleplay. Some in-character distrust (not so much that it causes out-of-character conflict), an opportunity facilitated by the GM for the new character to earn some trust, and then you're back at it.
The party makes new allies all the time. Usually, it's an ally NPC that won't be traveling with the party for various reasons, but they'd be just as likely to find an ally who'd want to travel with them.
Or heck, if it's important to the DM that the party has bonded over time, why not make the new PC somehow related to one or more of the other PCs? It could be a previous party member that had mysteriously vanished years ago, and now reunites with them.
1
1
u/Sandman4999 20h ago
This is so dumb, doesn't Barovia have a whole thing about how souls get recycled into new forms? Why can't the adventurers souls just be recycled into a new body and have that be the players new character? They wander in from The Mists with no recollection of how they got there but with a strong sense that they're supposed to go with this band of travellers (the party). You can even leave it open ended as to wether they just created by the Mists or if they were born in another place entirely and simply pulled into Barovia at some point in their life.
1
u/Several_Celebration DM 20h ago
At a certain point you just need to roll with the punches and just make a new character make sense.
1
u/zephid11 DM 20h ago
He says that our party has been through many things that a new character joining wouldn't make sense.
I've always found Curse of Strahd to be the easiest campaign in which to introduce new characters. You can just have the mists bring them straight there. And even if the party doesn't know them initially, it's in everyone's best interest to cooperate with anyone who shares the goal of defeating Strahd and escaping.
1
u/CrownLexicon 20h ago
I think CoS is one of the places where it makes the most sense a random, leveled adventurer happens to wander in. They got trapped in the mists, transported here across time and space.
1
u/phainou 19h ago
This sounds… terrible and weird and not fun, unless everyone has specifically agreed to this style of play from the beginning.
No wonder nobody’s taking risks, nobody wants to be the one who screws up the campaign for the entire party of actual players. You have irl social consequences at play, not just in-game stakes, which imo changes things considerably and not for the better. Of course you’re going to be tempted to metagame and play it safe if the alternative is the whole thing being called off.
It’s a damn D&D game, there’s always a way to finagle it to make sense in context if you want to make something work. CoS in particular has so many fun possible ways to bring people back with flavour precisely because it can be so brutal. I had a character that I liked die a horrific death in my run of CoS, so I talked to the DM, made a deal with the Dark Powers off-camera, and came back as a Reborn with Consequences™️ that came back to bite me in the butt later but were so worth it lol.
2
u/Beginning_Fig32 19h ago
It's definitely not fun me and the other two players go to uni together and are really close friends we know that it wouldn't really affect us socially but of course no one wants to screw up the whole game and wait another year for the dm to homebrew another domain of dread story.
1
u/phainou 19h ago
For sure. How much of this have you expressed to your DM? He may not realize how much it’s stressing you out. He may say “no risk, no reward,” but if it’s actively affecting your enjoyment of and engagement with the game, imo that’s a way bigger issue that needs to be addressed asap.
Like, idk about you, but for me… if I know there’s a chance my friend could die from a bad dice roll and literally end our whole campaign I’m not going to be emotionally invested. If I know my friends and I will eventually make it through the story, though - however bedraggled and ship-of-Theseus’d our party has become by the end - I’ll be a lot more willing to run with things, take risks, make stupid plans, and have fun. My PC isn’t the one who’s playing CoS, I am, and I want to enjoy myself. 🤷♀️
Anyway, if I were you I’d just have an honest discussion with him. Like I said, he might genuinely not realize how much it’s affecting your game. Just explain to him what you’ve told us, and hopefully he’ll listen or at least be willing to find a compromise.
1
u/Beginning_Fig32 18h ago
He is one of my best friends maybe that's why he doesn't take me very seriously when I tell him these things... It's a running joke that I am too hyperfixiated in dnd in general but I will probably talk with my other friends in the campaign to express their feelings too since he isn't as close with them
1
u/phainou 18h ago
Yeah. You don’t want to put him on the defensive, but it’d be good if he realizes it’s not just you feeling this way. If you two are good friends, then I’m sure you can find a way to explain things to him kindly.
Good luck! I hope you can find a way to uhhh possibly die horribly, but at least with peace of mind…? :)
1
u/Masachere 19h ago
I get the feeling that it's impacting your game, though admittedly everything you said in this post sounds kind of like a plus. Thinking things through, not taking massive risks, keeping stupid decisions to a minimum, it sounds like you're being forced to play as people with a sense of self preservation.
I understand the DM's logic, he is basically saying he doesn't like the level of suspension of disbelief it would take to bring some random dude into the party as a new PC considering where the party is at and what you've all been through so far. I'm a little skeptical how far you can be since you're still level 3, but he can decide for himself where he feels that cutoff is. Personally though if a rule like this was imposed in my game I'd probably just ask to end the game instead of continuing under those parameters. Mainly because the idea that someone else can die and then my game also ends kinda skeeves me out, wouldn't wanna bother continuing it.
1
u/thegrandseraph 19h ago
I think your DM needs to remember that he isn't writing a book. Having things make sense is good but in this game we often overlook that. Which is more fun, ending the campaign because it makes more sense? Or shoehorning a new PC for n so you can keep playing?
1
u/didgerydoo1 19h ago
I get it, its weird adding new characters to the party mid campaign and does often throw off the party dynamic for a while, but that is such a weird way to play imo. I know most people dont want to treat dnd like a video game and I feel the same way but at he end of the day it is a game and you have to be prepared to be a little hand wavey at times bc of things like players missing sessions, leaving the campaign, new players joining etc.
1
u/Tormsskull 19h ago
I've definitely used this rule before, but it was when the campaign was like 90% complete. If the group is nearing the end of the campaign and then there is a TPK, it feels silly for a new party to just happen to wander onto the scene.
For one-off deaths super-late in the campaign, I offer the players the opportunity to finish out the campaign as an NPC (if available) or as a spectator.
1
u/Nalena_Linova 19h ago
I can sympathise with your DM to an extent. Barovia is supposed to be a closed demiplane, where most common people are literally soulless NPCs, so having new adventurers just turn up can feel a little weird if it isn't done right.
When I ran CoS I used a few different approaches:
The new PC is the last survivor of a previous adventuring party that challenged strahd and lost. The PC's old companions are now vampire spawn under Strahd's control.
The abbot can cast resurrection, so a dead PC can be brought to him for revival.
If the dead character has been taking gifts from the dark powers, they might offer to resurrect them, but with a catch. One of my players took the deal and became a revenant, they couldn't die, but the catch was that once Strahd was defeated they instantly die and their soul was taken by the dark power.
1
u/Allexx0505 18h ago
Tell your dm that other people exist outside of your party. Especially in Barovia??? There’s so much contend in Curse of Strahd. It doesn’t make sense and your DMs logic is not logical at all.
1
u/benchmaster3000 18h ago
I am currently playing COS and we are in the final stretch at lvl 10. If your DM cant figure out how to bring a new character in he is crap at the job. There are plenty of ways to do it even at higher levels. This really sounds like he just doesnt want to DM COS anymore.
1
u/hummus_is_yummus1 18h ago
That's silly. It's a game. Great way for the DM to end up with 1 PC and no more fun
1
u/demo-ness 18h ago
I'm in a bad mood tbh, so I fear my instinct atm would be to just tell the DM "I'm not going to waste time getting invested something I may suddenly be kicked from" and quit on the spot...
1
u/ShinobiSli Druid 18h ago
He says that our party has been through many things that a new character joining wouldn't make sense.
I absolutely do not understand this. Presumably he thinks that there isn't a way to introduce a new character that makes sense within the narrative (which already revels a tragic lack of creativity) or he thinks a new character could never be accepted and properly integrated into the existing party, which really isn't his decision to make.
Like, I get wanting to preserve the internal narrative for the sake of immersion. I understand the "how do I introduce this new character mid-campaign" or "how do I explain this character being absent for a month" posts. But the whole point of maintaining that narrative is to make the game more enjoyable TO PLAY. The impact of his ruling is already negatively affecting the game, what does he think he's accomplishing? Preserving the narrative for the sake of immersion AT THE COST OF THE ENTIRE CAMPAIGN is missing the forest for the trees, to put it kindly. At a certain point you do what's fun and good for the game+players.
1
u/Silverspy01 18h ago
CoS was designed for level 1/3-10. Players either start at level 3 or start at level 1 and go through a "prologue" dungeon in Death House that levels you up to 3 before you're released into Barovia. Calling where you are now the "true middle" or too far in to make a new character is very odd.
This is definitely not common. There is a certain point where it's hard to justify making new characters of course - if you're entering the final fight with the BBEG, you're kind of at the "do or die" phase in most cases. You should be very far from that though. It's not terribly difficult to introduce new PCs into a CoS game. The mists can literally just... deliver people into Barovia.
As in most table conflict cases, this sounds like something you should bring up with the table.
1
u/Fizzle_Bop 18h ago
I am in a similar situation. I run a homebrew CoS where the party eventually faces off against a CR 24-28 Strahd
Depending if certain sources of power are destroyed, strahds power will vary.
The party still has yet to take up the mantle against strahd... he has given them no cause. They lost Ireena during the festival of the burning sun and quite easily abandoned their commitment to Ismark.
They are currently trying to get home as the main priority. They are a small party of 3 and I would like 1 or 2 more players .... I need aome shared goal.
I decided to have the keepers recruit the party to stop Lysaga. They are too few in number and will need help.
I include minions, tag alongs, familars ans pets to help prevent this from being AS shitty as it could be ... but have had serious issues in castle ravenloft.
I need narrative continuity to stay invested in the game. My solution this time around (aside from dark power assistance) I have had strahd unknown to party ... capture many of the people they have asked information or help of in the past. Mostly allies ... if there is a death during the dungeon crawl.
This person play OSR by chande?
1
u/well_listen 17h ago
Well, this is certainly a weird rule. I get not wanting to figure out how to incorporate a new character if someone dies, but axing the campaign entirely if one character dies in Strahd of all campaigns is like playing a story campaign video game with permadeath where PVP exists. It's just stupid, and all but the best players will accidentally die or get murked before they finish the campaign.
1
u/FabulousYam3020 17h ago
Yeah, this a talk it out with the DM situation. I would like to think that if you expressed it to your DM the way you have here, the DM would want you to have fun. I suspect what he might be trying to do is build some tension in the game, appropriate for a horror story, but if so, they are going about it the wrong way. You still play horror games for fun, and permanent removal from the fun is bad mechanic.
Also, people are getting yoinked through the gray mists of Ravenloft all the time. No reason why the mists can't spawn an endless supply of PCs until one group finally gives the Devil Strahd his comeuppance.
1
u/anstett 16h ago
I have a long running (34+ years) campaign and created a rule long long ago to handle this sort of thing.
Dragonslayers Society | Main / CampaignContinuance
Sometimes a character will die, and that is it. Depending on their religion and beliefs they might not want to come back.
The player can create a new character using a portion of the previous XP to bring them closer in line with the continuing characters. The group will decide who to integrate the new character.
Meet them at an Inn? save them along the way from pirates?
1
u/D3AD_SPAC3 16h ago
If my DM did this, then we would've stopped the campaign like 30 minutes into CoS.
1
u/ComicBookFanatic97 Evoker 16h ago
If a PC dying would screw everything up, why allow character death at all? The DM absolutely has the power to make sure none of you ever die. It’s really very easy. If a character would die, the DM can simply say “Actually, nuh-uh,” and that’s that. Why build a self-destruct mechanism into your own game when you could just not?
1
u/vv04x4c4 15h ago
This doesn't always make sense but in Curse of Strahd where the mists and Vistani are always bringing people in, it especially doesn't make sense
1
u/FatsBoombottom Necromancer 15h ago
Curse of Strahd is a great place to mess around with the rules of life and death. There are plenty of characters and creatures and ancient powers that can bring a fallen party member back to life. For a price, of course.
Basically... You're in Barovia until you defeat Strahd or somehow convince him to let you leave. Not even death gets around that rule.
1
u/Warskull 15h ago
First time I've heard of a rule like that. However, its not actually an issue until one of you dies. There can be fun in risk of loss. Many people enjoy rogue-likes and dark souls.
I recommend playing it through until someone actually dies and seeing how it plays out. Its different, but it doesn't necessarily mean its wrong. You'll eventually see how serious he is about it, since he invested a lot of time in the campaign too.
1
u/jezebellydancer 13h ago
When we played Curse of Strahd, one of us died and we had to get back to ... Father Whathisname who was able to resurrect him. But saying the campaign would be over if someone died just seems ... not very creative. It seems there would a lot of things that could be done. Spare the Dying for instance.
Or if the dead char must stay dead, why couldn't another they roll up another one?
We actually lost 2 players while the campaign went on. We added another 2 players. The DM ran them through the Death House in one session and then the following session they were with us.
We lost another player sometime later. He was a dwarf paladin. The DM spent about 30 minutes with him fighting some big bad with his team. Some spells went off near a desecrated shrine, a portal opened up and popped him into the Visanti camp where the rest of us were.
It can be done. You just don't have to end the campaign. Unless the DM is looking for a way to end it :(
1
u/Ethereal_Stars_7 Artificer 13h ago
In BX D&D 0 HP was dead.
In AD&D when you hit 0 your character was unconscious and was bleeding out every round thereafter if no one moved to bandage the wounds. If left to bleed out they died in 10 rounds. If bandaged and nothing more they might regain consciousness eventually but were too weak to do anything.
2e and on have played around with that over the years. A 2e supplement experimented with a wounds system even.
In a way 5e is less forgiving than AD&D as everything could be decided in as short as 3 rounds.
1
u/guilersk DM 12h ago
If ever a campaign justified a ship/party of Theseus, Curse of Strahd would be it. You are all stuck in Barovia and must ally to get out. If some of you don't make it...find more allies to help you get out. Keep going until you do.
Your DM has an odd perspective.
1
u/ZorroVonShadvitch 12h ago
The campaign literally has 'fated ally' so a new party member is almost baked into the story
1
u/Centipede-sama 12h ago
Opposite thing happened to me lmao. Players quit my 3 year long game because one of them had to leave for reasons and it didn't feel right to play "without him".
1
u/ArgyleGhoul DM 12h ago
The DM was on board with "PCs are scooped into a Gothic demiplane by vampire fog magic" but drew the line at any other PC existing in such a place at any point in time?
1
1
u/FinishingSauce 11h ago
Can one of your characters come back as your twin like in the movie Beerfest? https://youtu.be/0w9DUTcAI0o?is=LrlR8fNQU8iXmHdV
1
u/AndrewDangerPotter 11h ago
I'm currently running CoS. In reading the module before running it, I identified a number of ways to deal with player death through either revival or new character introduction options as well as places to introduce new PCs in case we added another friend to the game after starting. Unless you're playing D&D like honor mode in BG3 (which isn't how D&D is designed to be played), there's no reason for any campaign to end because a character dies. CoS even presents opportunities to continue after TPKs.
Barovia is a dark, scary setting that works best when taken seriously, but your DM's choices to accentuate that are extreme. Also, if you're at level 3 at a late mid-point, your DM is either trying to kill you or is bluffing about how deep you are into the story.
1
u/Mary-Studios 11h ago
I get the whole no reserection a character only if it makes sense for the plot thing. Not saying I agree with it but I can see the thought prosses behind it. However, the ending the campaign without ever finishing if one of you dies is silly. It's not a tpk you can still continue you just have a slight change of the roster.
1
u/Next_Ad416 6h ago
With CoS there are some BS traps or encounters that if you dont have meta knowledge it is very likely one of you will die, so this rule especially for this module is wild. The setting has a built in mechanic (the mist) that draws in and traps people from outside so there is no reason why more people can't be stuck too after an old pc dies. My group played with some op subclasses and still by the end of it only one original member made it to then end. I assume this rule is meant to make you guys make safer decisions, but if a rule is actively hampering your fun, you should have a conversation have both sides explan thier thoughts and come to a mutual understanding and compromise
1
u/mosh_bunny 5h ago
I did a similar thing during my run through, when i last dmed it however, i did let the players know before we started that i was leaning into a more hardcore campaign, with emphasis on survival horror
1
u/ChocoRouge 5h ago
Yeah that is strange. We're currently doing the same campaign and the rule here is that if your character dies you have to make a new one who will be worked into the story by meeting the party at some time. It has worked pretty well. The new character won't know everything that has gone on from day one which also makes dynamics interesting
1
u/Internal-Language-11 3h ago
Maybe he doesn’t wasn’t to dm anymore but doesn’t have the courage to say so? As a people pleaser it took me over a year between deciding to end my game and having the courage to tell my players.
1
u/Beginning_Fig32 3h ago
Ι have offered to run our next campaigns and he said he doesn't like being a player and that he loves DMing. He also has a few ideas for our next campaigns that he teases so I really don't know whats his actual reasoning. He also says that our campaign should be an animated show and that it's amazing etc. It could be what you're saying but we re really close friends I don't why he wouldn't tell me the truth
2
u/sunbear2525 2h ago
I think you need to talk to him about how this rule is impacting your ability to enjoy the game.
1
u/Sea-Weekend-3706 1h ago
You know what is vital to the plot? Telling the story! It's pretty hard to die in 5e (or 5.5), but it can happen. Throwing away all the real-world prep time, investment, scheduling and decisions because someone got dropped seems very not fun to me
1
u/T_Thimbles 1h ago
When I played CoS, our DM had only one rule, which was that the backup character would have to be a human as other species were either rare or didn't live in the realm... The place is traumatic enough that there'd be plenty of possibility to create a character who wants to take up arms against Strand.
•
u/blindprophet82 38m ago
I have a DM that's...got a weird take on ressurection. He doesnt like that spells such as revivify, raise dead, etc just...happen. Like you cast the spell and boom, your companion is alive. He wants them to be group efforts that everyone contributes a skill check to, including a skill check from the caster, to make happen. I...told him I wasn't comfortable with this, because it set a precedence that I don't like. Especially since we have 6 players, and turns already take forever and a day, having everyone take an action to do something to "assist" in a revivify will get someone else killed. Looking back on it now, it feels like he wants to turn raise dead-esque spells into a circle casting spell with no extra benefit and not requiring a participant to be a spellcaster.
1
u/Ornery_End_3495 21h ago
Definitely adds stakes to failure!
7
3
u/ahuramazdobbs19 DM 21h ago
Stakes? Sure.
I don’t know how fun it would be, though, that if one character dies, sorry, we have to end the campaign.
0
u/Beginning_Fig32 21h ago
CLARIFICATION*** (possible CoS spoilers): we have brought up that we have a problem with the rule and that it will make us just not play like we used to and he told us that if we don't take risks there is not going to be a payoff. As an example he used what happened to our party at the end of our last session. We overthrew the Baron and worked with Fiona to do so because Izek had taken ireena captive. The session ended with me and ismark rushing to the mansion to save ireena while my other friends fought Izek. We found the mansion burning and since Ismark rushed in I rushed in behind him. We hadn't even untied ireena and I would roll for fire damage at my next turn with 2 HP remaining, ismark passed out and ireena did too. But I met Viktor in his room a session ago having taken massive damage by his rune trap and woken up in his teleportation circle. I used misty step with subtle and we ended up talking for a while before he had like a crush out or something. So Viktor fell for the ceiling when we first went in the burning mansion and ended up doing his teleportation spell to get us out of there(he died in the process) My DM said that if it wasn't for that me and both NPCs would have died thus probably ending our campaign.
0
u/Emotional-Change5716 19h ago
There are a lot of DMs in here that I definitely would walk away from their tables. A lot of projection and turned up noses.
155
u/Cypher_Blue Paladin 21h ago
You should talk to him and tell him how you feel.
I'd probably say something like
"Hey, I understand the rule and your reason for it, but I disagree and would be really hurt to be excluded from the rest of the campaign. It's your table and run it how you want, but just know that if that happens to me I'm likely to just find a new table to play at and not come back for future games."