My character died am I wrong to be frustrated?

[MadBear]

I might somewhat on board with a DM only sparingly taking away deaths saves, if it wasn't for a few important details.

1. Characters can be brought back with something as trivial as a bonus action, and most worst case scenarios with an action
2. Enemies aren't automatons, and know this.
3. Enemies that are smart, and cruel wouldn't give a cleric a chance to just small wave away knocking a character out.

Now, to each their own, and far be it for me to tell another person what to expect from the game. But, I've been apart of many tables both as a player and as a DM. And never, ever, has there been this code that "DM's shouldn't try to kill downed characters". It depends on the scenario, and what the enemies know. If it's a horde of zombies, they're probably going to feast on the dead PC's flesh, because that's what zombies do. An owlbear protecting it's young, is less likely to do this, rather then attack those that still pose a threat. If there a group of intelligent creatures, they might take a downed character hostage, they might kill the first character that goes down, and then demand surrender to show they are serious.

So, it's probably a good thing MThurston that we don't play in the same groups, because our expectations are severely different. Because in my area, if a DM let it be known there was no risk of death, and enemies purposefully stupid, players would leave and find a more interesting group.

[Finback]

Xcom is often played Iron Man mode. Which operates like D&D. You can walk away and load the game up later, aka come back for next week's session, but all decisions are final (constant overwriting auto save)

Someone did just point out to me, there is a newer XCom game, than the one I'm thinking of..

[Mordaedil]

I don't think there is any problem with DM's killing characters, sometimes that is just part of the game. I just don't feel this was particularly warranted or relevant to the scenario here. A slave would be better and parading the corpse around town is just vindictive against the player. I think there is a time and place for these kinds of things, it isn't like it is entirely unwarranted for any game, but context matters.

Slavers, would recognize a good prisoner when they saw one and would want to enslave this barbarian rather than outright kill him.

Slavers, would not know this dwarf was anyone special, given that they are level 1 and would have no good reason to parade him around town.

Also the god-damn ferret.

I don't see why people are playing devil's advocate for this, these were bad decisions on the DM's behalf.

[Waazraath]

This is a DM that players already describe as what's pretty clearly a railroading/controlling storyteller in the first place.

Then in the specific, one that intentionally killed a downed PC with a (normal) ferret, after it was jokingly pointed out that one more hit would kill the PC. That's actively malicious.

This sums it all up quite nicely.

Dammit, as a DM, you're there to facilitate the fun. Having a player write large backstories, you should known them. Having a backstory that says "character is immensly triggered by X", and then presenting X in a situation where being triggered by it leads to certain death, is either incompetence (not reading / knowing said backstories) or bad intent. Either way sucks. The other players feeling the situation as unfair and uncomfortable as well settles it.

The player's reaction was to be expected, and could, should have been planned for (other than "killing PC dead"). And this kind of moral dillemma stuff shouldn't be overdone in the game anyways, 9 out of 10 times it just takes away the fun. You need to have a group that has actively chosen that play style (session 0), and a very compentent DM.

[Reynaert]

... presenting X in a situation where being triggered by it leads to certain death ...

AIUI, the situation only lead to certain death because the DM went out of their way to target the specific PC, ignoring all others, until they were sure he was dead dead.

[RazorChain]

I was particularly attached to this character and so I know that my emotions are swaying me a bit, however I wanted to get the objective opinion from others to see if I was in the wrong to initiate combat (felt like what my character would do). I started creating a new character, but I'm having a lot of trouble. I feel as though I can't play a character that's too emotional/driven which is makes me want to drop out completely.

You got put down like the rapid dog you were.

Most players just don't get it! They are escalating a situation to the max with an intention of murder.

How about threatening the slave trader or just maybe biding your time

[Waazraath]

AIUI, the situation only lead to certain death because the DM went out of their way to target the specific PC, ignoring all others, until they were sure he was dead dead.

Yeah. Makes it even worse.

[Mordaedil]

You got put down like the rapid dog you were.

Most players just don't get it! They are escalating a situation to the max with an intention of murder.

How about threatening the slave trader or just maybe biding your time

Why can't we all just sit down and discuss our disagreements on the treatment of slaves and slavery. Excuse me while I have this dwarf slave act as my chair and this dwarf as my footstool as I sit myself down and pour myself a cup of tea made from the tears of dwarves and the we can calmly discuss our disagreements on slavery and why you are wrong to want to free these beasts and why are you hacking away at my skull, sigh, this just illustrates my point that dwarves lack the necessary decorum for proper civility and discourse and now that you are dead, finally we can focus on the important aspects of civilized society, hey why are you running away, I'm just discussing my fairly well-formulated educated opinions, looks like you've got some growing up to do.

[Finback]

You got put down like the rapid dog you were.

Most players just don't get it! They are escalating a situation to the max with an intention of murder.

How about threatening the slave trader or just maybe biding your time

Barbarians are not noted for "biding their time". It's kind of in the name/job description. When one of your basic features for a class is "get so angry you become an unstoppable whirlwind of rage and property damage", becoming the next Machiavelli doesn't really appear on the radar.

The issue is more so that the DM allowed escalation in such a way that detracts from the narrative building. Had the DM had the slavers subdue and *enslave* the dwarf, putting them with the other dwarven slaves that triggered his rage, that would be constructive narrative building. It would allow for planned slave rebellions from inside the system, subterfuge, other PCs to try to use infiltration by charming guards, etc. But nope, we get "I KILL YOU" with the added insult of having an extra attack out of nowhere from a *WEASEL*. And when asked if, "hey, can you have me unconscious and maybe turned into a slave", the totally illegal-slave-trading pirate decides to forgo any attempts to hide this from any law in the town, and walk through town with the head of the dwarf held high on a pike. Did we mention that PCs aren't allowed to have magic, because magic is illegal? But the pirates, who use magic, are fine with having everyone know about their business, which would probably include magic users. There's whole levels of illogicality going on there within the "world". Might as well say they have a parade of siege weaponry with "death to all gods" painted on them, for all the response that would apparently engender.

There's not even an attempt to salvage the narrative to continue. Just a flat out giant middle finger to that player, instead of any attempts to *try* to find a way to create an enjoyable situation. That's the most horrible thing about all this -that the DM is this person's friend. I'm surprised they didn't take the dwarf's character sheet, poop on it then set fire to it.

[Waazraath]

The issue is more so that the DM allowed escalation in such a way that detracts from the narrative building. Had the DM had the slavers subdue and *enslave* the dwarf, putting them with the other dwarven slaves that triggered his rage, that would be constructive narrative building. It would allow for planned slave rebellions from inside the system, subterfuge, other PCs to try to use infiltration by charming guards, etc. But nope, we get "I KILL YOU" with the added insult of having an extra attack out of nowhere from a *WEASEL*. And when asked if, "hey, can you have me unconscious and maybe turned into a slave", the totally illegal-slave-trading pirate decides to forgo any attempts to hide this from any law in the town, and walk through town with the head of the dwarf held high on a pike.

+ (bloody*) 1.

*for the minimal required characters, that is.

[SpanielBear]

Why can't we all just sit down and discuss our disagreements on the treatment of slaves and slavery. Excuse me while I have this dwarf slave act as my chair and this dwarf as my footstool as I sit myself down and pour myself a cup of tea made from the tears of dwarves and the we can calmly discuss our disagreements on slavery and why you are wrong to want to free these beasts and why are you hacking away at my skull, sigh, this just illustrates my point that dwarves lack the necessary decorum for proper civility and discourse and now that you are dead, finally we can focus on the important aspects of civilized society, hey why are you running away, I'm just discussing my fairly well-formulated educated opinions, looks like you've got some growing up to do.

While I appreciate and agree with the more general point you’re making, can I just say that this sounds like a really fun BBEG. Someone you could really grow to *hate*.

Thing is though, it’s generally a bad idea to introduce this kind of character a) within the first few sessions of a game, and especially b) without strong telegraphing to the players that “this guy is out of your league”.

That’s the main problem I think. I quite agree that there should be consequences for player decisions, including death if things go really badly. But the players decisions should be informed.

As in, attacking what was presented as a pirate captain and a couple of mooks shouldn’t suddenly be revealed to be Captain Edward Teach, his arcane first mate Salty Saruman and Scamp the Dreaded murder weasel.

[MThurston]

I might somewhat on board with a DM only sparingly taking away deaths saves, if it wasn't for a few important details.

1. Characters can be brought back with something as trivial as a bonus action, and most worst case scenarios with an action
2. Enemies aren't automatons, and know this.
3. Enemies that are smart, and cruel wouldn't give a cleric a chance to just small wave away knocking a character out.

Now, to each their own, and far be it for me to tell another person what to expect from the game. But, I've been apart of many tables both as a player and as a DM. And never, ever, has there been this code that "DM's shouldn't try to kill downed characters". It depends on the scenario, and what the enemies know. If it's a horde of zombies, they're probably going to feast on the dead PC's flesh, because that's what zombies do. An owlbear protecting it's young, is less likely to do this, rather then attack those that still pose a threat. If there a group of intelligent creatures, they might take a downed character hostage, they might kill the first character that goes down, and then demand surrender to show they are serious.

So, it's probably a good thing MThurston that we don't play in the same groups, because our expectations are severely different. Because in my area, if a DM let it be known there was no risk of death, and enemies purposefully stupid, players would leave and find a more interesting group.

SMH.

I have never played in a none death game, ever.

I also have been lucky enough to never have a DM coup de grace a player character.

I have had a few characters die in games. One in rolemaster with a crazy attack roll. Its part of the game.

With that, I have never seen a DM purposely kill a character and for no good reason.

I have said this more than once. Failing death saves is one thing. Killing a PC while other targets are available is bad DMing.

I do however see the point of a zombie, but in this case, that was not it.

[Ivor_The_Mad]

Probably what I expect most people to do: Realize attacking right now might be suicide and plot their revenge for later when the situation is more favourable/profitable.

OR:

Be ok that your character's story ends with them died fighting for their cause...which is better than the "eaten by wolves" epitaph on most D&D character's gravestones.

I'm not saying the DM isn't at fault for the way he handled it, but this idea that OP was forced to kill his own character!?! is probably BS.

You are right but the DM should at least have a plan for if things result in combat because combat was not an unlikly option. That way it would not be a TPK or near TPK.

[MadBear]

I have said this more than once. Failing death saves is one thing. Killing a PC while other targets are available is bad DMing.

Except it isn't. In a world where magic pulls someone from down, to 100% back into the fight, there is very good reason for the NPC's to want to finish off a PC. Now, there were some ways that the rules could have been written to dissuade this, things like:

1. If you drop to 0 HP you can't get back into the fight as you need a moment to recuperate
2. You come back into the fight but with a level of exhaustion

But those are less fun, which is why the rules don't do that. But that does mean, that a PC whose knocked down, is a mild inconvenience for the healer to bring back into the fight. So if the bandit captain is aware that stabbing the downed character will prevent them from standing back up a second later, and killing him, he'd definitely do it.

Now, if you and your group don't like that, that's fine. But it isn't bad DMing. It's wanting enemies to act realistically. Like I said, not all enemies would do this. Heck, in the case of the OP, I'd probably have one of the captain say something like "Drop your weapons if you don't wanna see your friends entrails strewn across this room", and have some held actions to kill the PC if they didn't listen. That'd be more in line with ruthless slavers who could use a good new slave, while putting the PC's death at the hands of their friends if they didn't listen.

[Tanarii]

Thing is though, it’s generally a bad idea to introduce this kind of character a) within the first few sessions of a game, and especially b) without strong telegraphing to the players that “this guy is out of your league”.

I dunno, the posters made it pretty clear that the DM was using strong telegraphing that they were out of their league ... while pushing them over the edge anyway.

[Daghoulish]

Except it isn't. In a world where magic pulls someone from down, to 100% back into the fight, there is very good reason for the NPC's to want to finish off a PC.

-

But it isn't bad DMing. It's wanting enemies to act realistically.

Normally I might agree with this, however if you read OP's post you might have noticed this is an extremely low magic setting. To the point that magic is heavily regulated and the magic users in the party had to hide there ability's. The captain didn't know they could use magic and had no reason to believe they could. Making it an impossibility to use magic to pull someone back into the fight. This means that logically the captain should have moved onto the next target to make sure they couldn't stab him or any of his employees. Trying to state that in THIS world that the OP was playing in that making sure to kill enemies before downing everyone makes no sense.

That's even before going into the fact these are slavers and would probably relish the chance to break such an aggressive slave and the ferret being a big middle finger to the player. Adding to the fact that slavers are going to parade his head on a pike around town for ??? reasons says that this wasn't a "realism" feature of combat but an insult to the player for trying to go off the rails/play his character to their backstory.

[SpanielBear]

...One of our party members said he was not a part of this and was blinded by the woman who wore the necklace. This is what initiated combat. We were not able to leave the quarters as more and more crew members filed in and we are affronted by other crew members basically on all sides. *All NPC's were high level and somehow switched from being ferriers to pirates during this interaction*. If my character had not decided to ask if there was a window and jump out, it would have 100% been a party wipe....

Edited for brevity, emphasis mine. I’d say it doesn’t sound like the scenario was being presented as a level-inappropriate encounter. Npcs who until that point had been described as civilians turned into high-CR attackers when combat began, as I understand it. Why would any player be prepared for that, or play anticipating it without meta-gaming?

And to be clear, I don’t the DM is obliged to say that they were pirates. Having supposed friendlies turn hostile is a good dramatic trope. But turning them into multi-attacking combat monsters with wizard support? Against a level one party? That seems unnecessary.

[Cynthaer]

I do however see the point of a zombie, but in this case, that was not it.

That's the thing; I feel like some people are arguing against a strawman position of "no deaths ever, no, not even then, the DM should always have all enemies use the weakest possible tactics at all times to ensure nobody accidentally dies".

In any 5e game, I think it's a great idea to have a zombie horde converge on any character who hits 0 HP. It's an awesome way to make them really feel like zombies and ramp up the tension—suddenly the party has to really worry about not letting anybody drop to 0, which is exactly what you would want them to do in a zombie attack.

Two things, though.

The first is that you should really let your players know this in some way, such as having an NPC say, "Don't let them take you down! They won't let up until you're dead and eaten!" This isn't a "players' rights" argument; it's a tip to make your scenario more powerful and resonant as a DM!

The second is that this specifically deadly tactic should be used judiciously as a DM. Here, I think most of us are actually in agreement: It's interesting if different monsters use different tactics. We only disagree on the specifics—I would have enemies target downed players only very rarely, to make those specific enemies really stand out.

Even if you prefer a deadlier game, I don't think it's good gameplay to have every intelligent enemy aim for "kill a PC outright" as their main tactical goal, but to each their own. (I think 4e would be a far better choice than 5e if you really want to test your tactics against the DM's, but hey.)

In any case, as others have noted many times, fighting against slavers, who are defined almost entirely by their tendency to take captives, is possibly the last scenario in which I would expect enemies to optimize their tactics for PC death.

[CantigThimble]

So, I see two strawman positions:
1) DMs should always be expected to go well out of their way to keep PCs from dying because if they don't then they're just encouraging their players to make backstory-less murderhobos.

2) DMs should try as hard as they can to kill players every time they go down because otherwise there's no real risk in the game and therefore no tension.

If you actually hold one of those positions then speak up, but otherwise I'm going to assume that no one actually does and all the views people really have are somewhere inbetween those extremes.

I think it's perfectly reasonable to run a game where some enemies will spend an attack or two finishing off downed characters, either because they're particularly vicious, hungry or because they're afraid that that downed characters will be brought back into the fight with healing magic. I think that having at least 3 turns to help a downed ally is a luxury, not a right. Every time someone goes down it should be a serious concern and players shouldn't be able to safely plan for someone to go down and then get healed before it matters.

However, metagaming to make sure that the party has no chance to help a downed ally before they die should be avoided. The only concern of the DM should be the motivations of the NPCs and monsters he's controlling. If it makes the most sense for those monsters or NPCs to finish off the PC, then that should be what happens. They shouldn't pull punches because its a PC, nor should they double down because its a PC, both of those are metagaming.

[MadBear]

Normally I might agree with this, however if you read OP's post you might have noticed this is an extremely low magic setting. To the point that magic is heavily regulated and the magic users in the party had to hide there ability's. The captain didn't know they could use magic and had no reason to believe they could. Making it an impossibility to use magic to pull someone back into the fight. This means that logically the captain should have moved onto the next target to make sure they couldn't stab him or any of his employees. Trying to state that in THIS world that the OP was playing in that making sure to kill enemies before downing everyone makes no sense.

That's even before going into the fact these are slavers and would probably relish the chance to break such an aggressive slave and the ferret being a big middle finger to the player. Adding to the fact that slavers are going to parade his head on a pike around town for ??? reasons says that this wasn't a "realism" feature of combat but an insult to the player for trying to go off the rails/play his character to their backstory.

So my initial reply was just to MThurston, and not to the OP in general. In fact, you'll notice that I go on to say:

" Heck, in the case of the OP, I'd probably have one of the captain say something like "Drop your weapons if you don't wanna see your friends entrails strewn across this room", and have some held actions to kill the PC if they didn't listen. That'd be more in line with ruthless slavers who could use a good new slave, while putting the PC's death at the hands of their friends if they didn't listen."

[MThurston]

Except it isn't. In a world where magic pulls someone from down, to 100% back into the fight, there is very good reason for the NPC's to want to finish off a PC. Now, there were some ways that the rules could have been written to dissuade this, things like:

1. If you drop to 0 HP you can't get back into the fight as you need a moment to recuperate
2. You come back into the fight but with a level of exhaustion

But those are less fun, which is why the rules don't do that. But that does mean, that a PC whose knocked down, is a mild inconvenience for the healer to bring back into the fight. So if the bandit captain is aware that stabbing the downed character will prevent them from standing back up a second later, and killing him, he'd definitely do it.

Now, if you and your group don't like that, that's fine. But it isn't bad DMing. It's wanting enemies to act realistically. Like I said, not all enemies would do this. Heck, in the case of the OP, I'd probably have one of the captain say something like "Drop your weapons if you don't wanna see your friends entrails strewn across this room", and have some held actions to kill the PC if they didn't listen. That'd be more in line with ruthless slavers who could use a good new slave, while putting the PC's death at the hands of their friends if they didn't listen.

This is an example of bad DMing.

If you believe that as a DM you need to win fights at all costs, then you do not need to be running games.

How about attacking the guys that brings these PCs back up?

Once they are down, no one is getting back up!

This shouldn't have to be taught to DMs.

1. The game should be fun for all. Not just you and your best friend.

2. The story should touch everyone's background to have them involved.

3. Make the game challenging and make the players think.

4. Try to undo the parties plans when possible to make it more dramatic. Ie, the guard you bribed is not on watch and you have to sneak into the castle.

5. Do your best to not kill PCs without a dramatic death. Ie, your platemail fighter gets knocked off of a ship by a spell. Have them make a Dex save to stay on the ship.

At that time tell the group he went into the water. Make the fighter make some saves that mean nothing. Then after the fight the group hear the fighter yelling for help. His foot is caught in some netting and he is hanging above the water.

The PC is out of the fight and they didn't lose their character.

Now if that was a Giant Squid eating your fighter, that would be an epic death.

6. Remember as a DM you are not invested in the PCs as much as they are. So do your best to not abuse them when possible.

7. Never kill a character because you don't like the person playing or the choice they made in the game.

8. Don't be mad when you spend 12 hours of your time making a hook for the group and they don't take the bait.

[mephnick]

Modern D&D is built on the base assumption that you will create an actual character even at level 1, complete with personality, ideals, flaws, bonds, and background—and that this character will survive through the end of the campaign (even if they may change greatly along the way).

Man, you're going to have to cite that. When I read the description of 5e it says stuff like "deadly dungeons and horrible monsters" and nothing about "the DM will guarantee you get to tell your story to the conclusion you choose."

I think people have been watching too much Critical Role if they think that's how D&D is assumed to work.

[Cynthaer]

Modern D&D is built on the base assumption that you will create an actual character even at level 1, complete with personality, ideals, flaws, bonds, and background—and that this character will survive through the end of the campaign (even if they may change greatly along the way). That doesn't mean the game assumes death is impossible, but it does assume death is a very unusual and unexpected occurrence, and represents a major change for the story and the players.

Man, you're going to have to cite that. When I read the description of 5e it says stuff like "deadly dungeons and horrible monsters" and nothing about "the DM will guarantee you get to tell your story to the conclusion you choose."

I think people have been watching too much Critical Role if they think that's how D&D is assumed to work.

I feel like you've grossly mischaracterized what I said about death. I said:

(A) 5e's design assumes that the character the player creates at level 1 will already be a complete character.

(B) 5e's design also assumes that this character will survive through the end of the campaign. This perhaps could be more precisely worded as "assumes that the player will play this character for the duration of the campaign", since death followed by resurrection (often with a sidequest to pay for that resurrection) is a reasonably common occurrence.

(C) This base assumption includes the likely occurrence that the players' characters will change greatly over the course of the campaign.

(D) The design assumes outright PC death is uncommon and will have a significant impact on the campaign and the players when it happens (but it is not something to be avoided at all costs).

In my full post, you can see I was specifically contrasting with the approach to death taken by early D&D editions, where the base assumption was that individual PCs were cheap and expendable, and permanent death was common.

I don't believe I said anything that can reasonably be interpreted to mean "the DM will guarantee you get to tell your story to the conclusion you choose".

(Also, as always, you can and should approach your own games with whatever you like best. If you want a brutal 5e game where everybody rolls up to the table with 20 pregenerated character sheets using 3d6 rolled in order, and none of them have names because you don't expect them to last more than 2 rooms in the dungeon? Go nuts! If everybody's having fun, there's no wrong way to play D&D or any other game. But that is clearly not the core design assumption​ of the game, nor the most common way people play it.)

[tchntm43]

I think it's clear from the replies that people who play this game want different things out of it. It's important for the DM (and this is something explicitly stated in the DMG) to understand what the players want out of the game and create a campaign that meets those needs. The DM is akin to the host of the party. If the party sucks and nobody is happy, it is usually (but not always) the host's failure.

There are certainly play styles where the circumstance of a new character dying permanently can work. But the reward for the player (in terms of enjoyment) have to match what they put into the game. This kind of play style, as others have said, fits a campaign where characters don't have back stories. You just roll for your stats and go dungeon delving until you die. There's nothing wrong with playing that way if you want.

On the other hand, if the DM requires the players to create extensive histories and personalities, the player rightly expects a return for that investment. Being killed off in the first adventure effectively wastes a large amount of time for that person. Imagine that you are brand new to the game, and the DM has asked you to write a 1-page character history (typed), and then the character dies in the first adventure. Do you think that person would be inclined to play this game again (even with a different DM)? From what we've been told the DM did make a hefty requirement on each member of the group.

The goal is for people to enjoy playing this game and to want to keep playing. The DM can't be "right" if the DM's actions cause the player group to not want to play D&D anymore. Remember that the DM is not on equal footing with the players; the DM is the host. If the DM is not able or willing to make sure that the player group is having a good time with the game, then the DM should consider being a player, not a DM. This is true even if it means the DM is having less fun than the DM would be if the players were making the decisions the DM wanted them to make to progress the story ideally. The DM should prioritize player fun over DM fun. DMing isn't for everyone. It's a big responsibility.

[Cynthaer]

On the other hand, if the DM requires the players to create extensive histories and personalities, the player rightly expects a return for that investment. Being killed off in the first adventure effectively wastes a large amount of time for that person. Imagine that you are brand new to the game, and the DM has asked you to write a 1-page character history (typed), and then the character dies in the first adventure. Do you think that person would be inclined to play this game again (even with a different DM)? From what we've been told the DM did make a hefty requirement on each member of the group.

That's a very good point. I've mostly been talking about the generic assumptions that the average DM and player would have, based on the design decisions of 5e in general.

But in this case, it's not really hypothetical—the DM specifically asked the players to create backstories and fleshed-out characters. That's the explicit signal for the kind of game the 5e design assumes: Each player has ~1 character for the whole campaign, and if a character does die, it's a huge deal.

If the DM had started the game with, "have a backstory if you want, I guess, I don't really care", and then the OP was upset because their character died, then I'd 100% be telling them that their DM clearly wants a meatgrinder and now they can know to expect that. That's not what happened here.

By all appearances, this DM isn't running a "high lethality" game; they just didn't like that a player reacted in a way they didn't intend and so punished the player by killing the character. No matter what kind of game you're running, that's just bad DMing.

[mephnick]

I'm going to ignore the "assumes" thing because we definitely will never agree that's the case, but yes I agree that DMs shouldn't ask for a huge backstory and then kill a character in the first session unless that's been specifically stated as a likely outcome. It's OK to require deep characters and kill them off, (the players can put an hour into a character background for their possibly years long game they don't have to do any work for....)but that has to be overtly stated.

I don't like long backstories and prefer relatively blank slate characters that reveal themselves throughout the game by the choices they make. I did miss the part about the complex backstory that was asked of OP.

[Cynthaer]

I'm going to ignore the "assumes" thing because we definitely will never agree that's the case, but yes I agree that DMs shouldn't ask for a huge backstory and then kill a character in the first session unless that's been specifically stated as a likely outcome. It's OK to require deep characters and kill them off, (the players can put an hour into a character background for their possibly years long game they don't have to do any work for....)but that has to be overtly stated.

Fair enough, and I don't want to keep harping on a minor point of disagreement. That said, let me try one last time to make my case in a slightly different way:

In the AD&D Player's Handbook, there is almost no space devoted to fleshing out a player character. There's about half a page describing the different alignments, and one paragraph on "personifying" your character (of which only one sentence actually matters), which I will reproduce here in its entirety:

By determining abilities, race, class, alignment, and hit points you have created your character. Next you must name him or her, and possibly give some family background (and name a next of kin as heir to the possessions of the character if he or she should meet an untimely death) to personify the character. Having done all that, your Dungeon Master will introduce your character to the campaign setting. In all likelihood, whether the locale is a village, town, or city, your character will have to acquaint himself or herself with the territory.

Contrast that with the 5e Player's Handbook, which has 4 pages on "Character Details" followed by 18 pages (!) of background suggestions, complete with unique tables for personality traits, ideals, bonds, and flaws for each one. 5e also encourages players to actually engage with the background system by giving it a little bit of mechanical impact in the form of proficiencies, languages, starting gear, and usually a ribbon feature with some light narrative weight.

Basically, all I'm saying is that this increased emphasis on character personalities and backgrounds (they're not even labeled "optional" like feats are) tells us how the designers expect 5e to generally be played. And that way is with a focus on the few unique characters the players create, rather than a stream of expendable characters with little background.

If you still disagree, then so be it. In the end, everybody's tables are going to approach it slightly differently.

[Tanarii]

Nothing in the 5e fleshing of personalit, which takes about 5-10 extra minutes after maybe 5-10 min of mechanical decisions, has any implications regarding character survivability.

[CantigThimble]

If you believe that as a DM you need to win fights at all costs, then you do not need to be running games.

One very important point: When I am DMing, I am not trying to beat the players at all costs. However, I will very often be roleplaying people who DO want to beat the players at all costs. As the DM, I will create these NPCs with their own weaknesses and the possibility that they can be defeated by the players. But then, I will try to separate my goals as DM and just try to make decisions for those NPCs that are true to who they are and the siuation they find themselves in.

If there is an NPC who has the motivation and the will to kill your character, don't give him the opportunity.

(I'm not sure if you disagree with this or not based on what you wrote, but I felt it was worth stating regardless.)

[Cynthaer]

Nothing in the 5e fleshing of personalit, which takes about 5-10 extra minutes after maybe 5-10 min of mechanical decisions, has any implications regarding character survivability.

On general principle, would you at least agree that the more fleshed out a character is, the more attached to them a player is likely to be, and the less they feel like an expendable pawn?

(I'm not trying to move any goalposts; I'm just curious where we agree and disagree.)