Why don't we want D&D characters to die? 

Death is such a tragedy, not only for what we lost, but what we could have had.

This is, quite possibly, the most intelligent and articulate discussion on character death I have ever seen. Thank you, Dael Kingsmill. I'm glad you're making videos again.

"Huizinga's Magic Circle" needs to be made into a spell

this actually reminds me of the start of the episode III novelization. "A strange thing about stories. Though this is happening so long ago and so far away that time cannot describe the time or distance. It is also happening right now, right here, as you listen to these words."

"This is gonna come around again when we get to Aristotle" was just music to my ears. I loved how you expanded on the Nuzlock comparison. I've not played a Pokémon game in years, and I've never done a Nuzlock, but you talking about the poisoned Pokémon fainting feeling like death really spoke to how it felt as a kid. When this happened to me and I did bring the Pokémon back, I thought 'This must have some negative effects, right?' I actually can't recall what mechanically happens when a Pokémon faints, but I just know it's bad. The fact that I couldn't tell almost made it worse. If I knew I had to release it if it happened, it would also feel worse, but something about that feels different. More final and defined. Sometimes when I bump my head, I worry I might have lost some small memory, or I've lost a point of IQ or something. This unknowable, vague sense of loss leaves me with a lingering anxiety - does it come from the injury, or from the knowledge of the injury? Unknown loss and certain loss evoke different feelings. I suppose that raises the question: If you remove the experience of carthartic, unquestionable death from your game, what unknown loss do you experience instead? Excellent work as always! This video was a beautiful, phenomenal experience :)

Its not that often I am compelled mid video to make a comment, but how could I not? THIS IS WHAT THE PEOPLE WANT!!!

A wise deer once said "You feel what you feel, and those feelings a real."

My paladin died at level 4, fighting a dragon in its lair. I rolled a 1 on my death savings throw... followed by another 1. R.I.P. Sir Galdon

This is exactly the content I needed to see on the eve of my group's final BBEG throwdown! One of our players is moving away, which definitely enhances the feeling of finality in this, our final in-person session, but I think if we lean into the right notes, this ending might help to reassure them that this is just AN ending, not THE ending.

Through the story you gain attachment to your character. When you're attached to something and it is taken away, an emotional response follows. This happens in all kinds of media whether you play it, watch it, or read it. Emotional Attachment is a key factor.

I was forced by circumstance to leave a game I had been playing in for a good few months, and I cried for twice as many hours. Both for the time lost making the character, and the emotions put into figuring out how they tick (in particular, alongside the rest of the party) being lost forever, but also for the time lost being that character. Vicariously living through much more interesting characters in a much more fantastic world makes for brilliant escapism that allows exploration of philosophical ideas from the comfort of your own office chair over a voice call in a closet. (Well, I say comfort, lol). Awesome video, subscription well earned :3

I hear the first sentence of the video(why don't we want our D&D characters to die by Dael Kingsmill) and my brain goes: "That is an oddly specific cause of death". What a brilliant start of the video! 🤣

So Dael made me smile therefore I am real, if, of course Dael is real .

5:32 I had never imagined I might one day have a phenomenal body. Didn't even do any workouts.

Generally speaking, memories are one of two “types”. One is “stories that are told to me” and the other is “things that happened to me”. Movies, books, video games (for the most part) fall into the former. TTRPGs like D&D fall into the latter due to the active involvement and nature of the game. Also when referring past sessions, it has been my experience that people will say “Remember when we did ….” and “We were going to do ….” As opposed to “Remember when our characters did …..” and “Our characters were going to ….” Death in D&D hurts because it happens to us. - the only time an action is not us but are character is when we want an excuse to do sketchy crap .. “ well my character would do ….”

Huizinga's theory reminds me a lot of a conversation between Death and Susan in the Hogfather. HUMANS NEED FANTASY TO BE HUMAN. TO BE THE PLACE WHERE THE FALLING ANGEL MEETS THE RISING APE. "Tooth fairies? Hogfathers? Little-" YES. AS PRACTICE. YOU HAVE TO START OUT LEARNING TO BELIEVE THE LITTLE LIES. "So we can believe the big ones?" YES. JUSTICE. MERCY. DUTY. THAT SORT OF THING.

My first character died when a rival rogue crit on her sneak attack against him, instakilling him. RIP Martine, you were the bravest of them all

Idk if what I'm about to write is too tangential or based on a misinterpretation, but I've noticed that there's a strong positive correlation between how much I enjoy a campaign and how much the people at the table (appear to) "believe" in it, both as a player and a GM. I think there's a tie between that and the themes of this video. I find that part of me is really deflated when a player says something that indicates that they don't really believe in the world while at the table (for example, describing their character doing something that you can do in a video game due to a bug or shortcoming of the game engine). I get a similar feeling around excessive use of "video gamey" language, especially when it's done to trivialize decisions or reduce a course of action to a routine. But I do understand the usefulness of drawing from shared language and tropes, or even just cracking jokes, so I'm always hesitant to say anything. These experiences would cause me to think, "are the other players and I playing the same game?", which is probably a needlessly prickly and careless way to express that thought. But maybe it's better phrased as "are the other players here with me in this magic circle?". There's probably a strong link here with the subject of playstyles, player expectations, and the purpose of a session zero. Maybe session zero is a formalized act of constructing a magic circle (side note: my players are great, and I feel lucky to have people that put up with my GMing)

Man, I have missed Dael's ramblings after she's "finished" the main part of her video.

THIS. THIS! THIS IS WHY WE LOVE YOUR VIDEOS. GODDAMN I love this content. Subscribing on this account now, but I've seen your videos for awhile now. Please please continue making videos. Your mythological background and academic background add so much to game and theory content. One of my most favorite D&D content channels.

"This is gonna come around again when we get to Aristotle." This is just as good a quote as all the folks you quoted in the video, Dael.

This is really interesting. I think the fact that the rules shape the experience (in some games there is no death, in some games you get your limbs cut off at the first swing of the blade) really shows how ttrpgs are great and intense in terms of game design. Thanks for the video.

This phenomenology is also the reason why literature is such an effective means of teaching and learning! The brain is hardwired to learn through story, which explains why so many cultures value oral storytelling and storytelling in general. I loved this!

Also, I believe that death has a huge part in creating stakes. Not the presence or the occurrence but merely the suggestion helps us to consider life from their perspective. As long as we know there exists the ultimate consequence for our potential actions we will choose them carefully

Dael I need you to know I think about this ALL. THE. TIME. and there is so much I could talk about in relation to this (specifically how if you've never read Wisher Theurgist Fatalist by Jenna Moran you absolutely should, you'd love that game I promise) but I think it also highlights how our choice of rules is equally important to narration or themes, because they are inherently linked to one another. We are merely expressing the fiction in different means, sometimes with numbers or words but usually together. You don't say the rolled number alone when you cause HP loss, you say "4 Damage." When you use various rulesets you naturally draw out a corresponding fiction and that alters your virtual landscape. You don't bust out the Chess set to play Crokinole, just as you don't say "Checkmate" to declare victory at its end.

When we played AD&D, we had a few characters each. And several hirelings. You know, meat shields.

WOW! Really coming back swinging with this one! As one of the ones in the comments of that Eldritch Lorecast video who wanted to hear you speak more on this topic, thank you so much for doing so! This is some really deep stuff, and I greatly enjoyed hearing it.

This is exactly why I don’t wait till someone in my party goes down, to heal them; if I saw a friend or loved one get cut with a sword irl, I wouldn’t stand around saying to myself: “Well, they’re still standing so it’s fine for now…” I would immediately try making my way over to them as safely as possible, and start treating their wounds, unless their CHARACTER expressly tells me not to, and even then it would feel like a tough choice. “Yo-yo” healing is also why I don’t often take meta gaming complaints seriously, unless it’s blatant.

Oh my god!! You're discussing Huizinga?! I literally just finished an essay that opened with a quote by him!! Just, oh man, the way my jaw dropped comic book style when you mentioned him. Had me laughing and patting my desk. If only you'd posted the video a week ago...! You knocked it out of the park. Great vid and great to see you're making vids again! 🙏

I’m loving this new era of videos! You’re reminding me of the first time I played Burning Wheel and my character died in the first 3 sessions. But because he died having been offered a way out of the citadel before the orcs arrived. He died because he refused to leave the Althing he swore his life to. He died because of the beliefs on his character sheet. I live a comfortable life. I don’t need to die for my beliefs. But because of Lothlind, I guess I kind of already did die for my beliefs. Virtually. Really cool!

Awesome video. I've encountered some of these ideas before, but I don't think I've ever seen them so clearly put! Some notes of my own: - Illusion and enchantment magic are profoundly, compellingly and emotionally conjuration magic - Once the Magic Circle has served its purpose, one could delve into Goffman's Frame Analysis which (put way too simply) explores how people can have multiple, stacking, and individually subjective frames (basically 'magic circles' or perspectives) and thus the interpretation of what counts as a game, a law, a prank, or sheer violence might entirely be down to the perspectives each of the participants took - Isn't "gaming without death rules" kind of the founding principles behind the 1960's New Game Movement, that purported that the games we play colour the cultures we create and thus devised non-competitive games focusing on collaboration and togetherness? (I must delve further)

In the TTrpg Heart: The City Beneath, the whole point of the story is the slow and inevitable heroic death of the character. It's really cool! Your most powerful ability that you unlock once you have archived your greatest goal in life literally puts you out of commission forever.

If a tree falls in the forest and there's no one around to hear it, does it make a noise. Phenomenology: Nah, bro

This made me consider how the "psychic self" compares to Simulation Theory. The idea of programming an accurate simulation of a person and world, that operate as their real counterparts, even to the point of not knowing they are simulated, and creating their own simulations, all of which is done by the real people in order to see hypothetical scenarios play out without any real world consequences... and how the imagined, psychic self is little more than a simulation programmed by your own organic computer brain, to experience hypothetical scenarios in place of experiencing them in real life... The possibility exists that we are anything from a simulation designed to play out terrible events to that our programmers can limit the damage of such events in their reality, to the daydream of some bored teenager in the middle of class, just waiting to me snapped out of existence by a frustrated teacher's yells. And yet, I'm still going to fucking work tomorrow...

Matt hasnt used the machine for awhile so dael pinched it

1- I love the tweet about a kid who's elf died during his first DnD game, to which he promptly wrote 'Jr.' after his name on top of the sheet and yelled 'I'M HERE TO AVENGE MY FATHER!' 2- This is why it's so frustrating to me when I'm reading some OSR rulebook and it says 'if a PC dies, a new one should be rolled immediately and join the party as soon as possible'. I feel like that distills a PC down to its mechanical aspects only, the ways it can interact with the world and not its reasons to do anything at all. Like, that's not fun. This man's not a zombie I built to do my bidding, it has a story and a background and a family and Interests. That's the best part of playing a ttrpg for me. (Also, so many of these games are focused on dungeon delving... And you're just supposed to shove a brand new PC into the party because it was also wandering around 16 levels down an abandoned mineshaft or something... It's so fiction breaking)

Recommanded reading : "Goffman, fun in games" (it's shorter than frame analysis), the author is from a branch of phenomenology that fused with sociology. really great reading (well, if you except the quality of writing...) There is also a lot of litterature on avatars in video games.

Oooo, love that ear piercing. I love how "This is gonna come around again when we get to Aristotle" made me scroll down because I was thinking "I clicked on a D&D video right?"

I lost a character to a pvp ambush and cried for hours. It was like I lost someone close to me, forever.

This was an entertaining analysis to listen to. The first point you brought up about taking the time to recreate the same character, making death nothing more than an inconvenience that costs real time, is actually quite valid. If that's what players typically do in response to character death, why not cut out this real-time inconvenience if they're going to essentially continue to play the same character? That brings into question whether or not involuntary death is a must in D&D. A number of other TTRPGs have addressed this issue in different ways. In Fabula Ultima (a game that seeks to emulate JPRG tropes), once a PC's HP goes to 0, the player has two options: surrender or make a heroic sacrifice. If they surrender, their PC is still in play, but they're in a much more complicated situation. If a Villain (an actual in-game term) is involved in the scene and their HP goes to 0, they can choose to make a heroic sacrifice, pulling off a big win but at the cost of their one and only life. If there is no villain involved in the scene, the PC cannot make a heroic sacrifice if their HP reaches 0. PCs that heroically sacrifice themselves are gone forever. In either case, the choice is up to the player, not the dice or the GM. These mechanics reflect such tropes present in many JRPGs. In Worlds in Peril (a PbtA supers game that is not Masks), there is a procedure called "Dead for Now." In the worst-case scenario, death is temporary until the GM chooses to bring you back, but with complications of their choosing. This is very much in-line with the superhero comics genre, but this can definitely be applied to modern D&D, as PCs become more and more like MCU characters. In the MCDM RPG, a PC dies when their health reaches half of their maximum health in the negative. Once a PC reaches 0 health, they are not knocked unconscious and can still act. However, they're unable to heal themselves without aid and particularly strenuous actions deal damage to them, so the choice of whether or not they ultimately die is largely in their hands (they can choose to play dead and hopefully not be noticed by their enemies). These mechanics reflect not only the cinematic nature of the game (you still get to do stuff when in this crisis state, like Boromir with the arrows) and it's tactical as well (you get to decide how far you push yourself, even if it brings you closer to death). Unfortunately for modern D&D, it's forced to fence-straddle with regards to how it presents itself as a genre in order to widen its appeal to as big an audience as possible, which is why I think it'll always have involuntary death on the table (even though the designers try really hard to minimize this possibility with ever more lenient rules on dying with each subsequent edition of the game).

I've never been too bothered by my characters dying in D&D. There's mild annoyance that I can't contribute for a little bit, but not any sense of grief or mourning. The last time it happened I just got out another sheet and started on my next character. From some of the comments this seems to not be the way others handle it.

This is a major step up in terms of the concept for you Dael. This is hugely entertaining. Scott Bruner did his PhD along a lot of these ideas (btw check out Plot Points for lots of these ideas). STEM has a lot to gain from the humanities.

My big thing for "Death in RPGs" has always been themes. If you're wanting "gritty realism", death should be a lingering spectre. If you're doing an "Epic Heroic" story, death should be possible, but meaningful, at least for the heroes. If you're doing "Silver Age Capes and Cowls", death should be rare and shocking. Just blanket statement saying, "No Death Ever", would rob some of those stories of the feeling those stories should evoke. In an actual game sense, death as a consequence should, at the very least, feel like a possibility. If not, you may get the jerkass who decides to stand in front of the rampaging tarasque knowing full well death isn't a thing because, "What's going to happen? The DM won't kill us."

On the "virtual world" concept, I'm a fan of the term "secondary world" to prevent confusion (I think I got it from Colville).

Writing an essay on Huizinga at the moment and I decided to watch this in my break... I just can't get away!

We don’t want them to die because I don’t wanna make a new character AGAIN

This is peak philosophy tube. But the real existential crisis I had watching this was learning that Dael is almost the same age as me and running 4D chess D&D theory 0.0 Some of the most fun games I tried in 2023 were in the Moerk Borg system (where death is constant and rolling up a new character took less time than my dead PC's 5 minutes of fame) and Trophy Dark, where the characters are destined to fall prey to madness, mysterious forces, or death at each other's hands. Both were amazing experiences and really different tones from the D&D 5e experience where I think camaraderie and an 'ideal' ending for the character to reach their goals, fulfill their bonds, etc. also come into play to invest us more in seeing that tale through to the end.

That wasn't a Voltorb, that was a Jigglypuff, as seen from above. Another banger of a video! Always enjoy your analysis.

Dael: When I use that term - "virtual reality" - I'm guessing that a lot of us are calling to mind images of like Ready Player One- Me: [involuntary gagging] cooool vid

Dale is the BEST. This is why I don't care how often she posts I'm just glad when she does!

What I took away is that legs are existential catharsis.

About the only time I can truthfully claim that I have a "phenomenal body".

Great video! The phenomenology piece reminds me of the Terry Pratchett quote in Hogfather about justice and mercy being important lies we construct.

The nature of reality reminds me of that one version of Illusion magic and Shadow magic being attached to the Shadow Weave and Shadowfell

With playing lots of DCC and the meat grinders, I dont mind characters dying. They are my meat puppets, they rely on me playing the "best", if they die it shows me that I'm not playing at my "best".

This is such a strange question. While i dont want my character to die, its not the end if anything except maybe that characters story. My next reroll will be a cooler character. This has never failed.

I've always prefered a high probability of character death in my games, both as a player and as a DM/GM. The idea of avoiding that is so alien to my way of thinking.

Man I wasn’t ready for a discussion on what is real at 8:00AM.

Very interesting stuff! I personally can't say I would describe my experience with character death as feeling anything like death, even like the death of a character in a book. It's somewhere between there and playing Minecraft. The world is "real", but the avatar is somewhat exchangable. Some time ago I was playing in a friend's game and I took a risk in a dangerous situation and my character died. I was happy, because it felt dramatically true to the shared story at the table. Another character stayed behind to cover the retreat and the player also seemed happy with that outcome. I need to think about this some more.

Basically, in layman terms. This video is saying we don't like our Characters dying because we put ourselves into that Character. Yet it's more then just that, even with videogames I pretty much never play on high difficulties. Games are meant to be escapism from reality. So if it's too difficult or real then that ruins that escapism/immersion (at least for me). That's another reason why we don't want our Characters dying. Henceforth, why I set up a "Homebrew/House Rule" in case I was ever a DM so that Player Character Deaths/TPKs can never happen except in the most extreme circumstances. For example: If the player character literally jumps off a massive cliff without being a Slow Fall Monk or Feather Falling Magic-User then your character is most likely gonna die. Finally; I also created a stat system where you start with 72 points you can spread however you want NOT EXCEEDING 20, then you add your Racial Stats on top of that STILL NOT EXCEEDING 20.

I'm so excited for weekly videos! Thank you for welcoming us back to the phenomenological thunderdome! 🎉

So it made me think a thunk. I do have a hard time giving this much credit to people playing D&D. I would say (in my experience) the most apprehension to death is because of the investment of time, thought and effort that goes into making a 5e character. One does not want to loose all the time put into a character with a death. But this is just a single case, there will be times when the character we play really speaks to us and we think we are doing a great job giving this virtual self life, and when deaths happens, it hurts. Also the button did not light up to subscribe when you said it.

just saying, I'd listen to Dael's essay on (the subject of) legs. I like the way she thinks her thunks!

Excellent rumination, Dael. It's great to have you back in the Thunderdome again!

Well I didn't wake up today and expect to learn why the heart wrenching feeling I get from a character dying in D&D and a pokemon dying in a nuzlock feels the same

That did made me Think a Thunk (yep I'm stealing the phrase.) Reminded me of a history lecture I had where the professor explained how all laws only function because everyone agrees they do. There's nothing physically stopping you from stopping at a red-light only the fact those are the laws we have chosen to abide by. I feel this does really explain why I have cried over chatacters dying and enjoy tradgey

Love your content!!! Not sure why you arent bigger. One of my favorites. I take breaks some times but I always come back and am never disappointed!!

I got absolutely distracted by the amount of joy in your "my hands just made a fart noise! :D"

The sacred cows song "kill kill kill" Great essay, but where the rubber hits the road is the space where these stakes mean some players say "you cannot kill my character without my consent" to GMs or GMs who would never kill a character because of how upset the player would be. It's great to care about the stakes but it's also a game

So proud of you for sticking to your own new game rules (aka, making a video)

I am also surprised people wanted a deeper explanation of this. I would have said, "uh... for the same reason you don't want your favorite book or movie character to die, even though you can watch a new movie or read a new book." The most visceral reaction I ever had during a game was due to the death of an NPC who I felt I had failed to protect. The guilt of finding that character's body rocked me to my core. Me and my character.

This phenomenon is probably why I try not to get attached to every NPC that comes up in a game. This is probably why I like to make an NPC PC that travels with the party. Besides the gentle nudge I can provide through that character, it's someone I can project myself into.

"The question is not Can they think? Nor - Can they talk? But - Can they suffer?" (Jeremy Bentham). Because the suffering we feel when our (entirely fictitious) characters die is real, they are real to us (even though we know they're not "actually" real).

A good video, but I would say it presupposes a couple things that make it not hold water across the board: 1) that all D&D or other RPG characters are self-inserts. I do not feel that I have died when my D&D character is killed, I feel that a character has died in a story. It is certainly emotional but it is still at an arm's length, and being able to not just play self-inserts is a sign of maturity. 2)To continue on the theme of maturity, this is the other element: being able to handle death, pain, sorrow, etc. is an aspect of maturity, and those that lack maturity are often unable to confront such topics well. I think it is perfectly reasonable to not be at the level of maturity, not everyone is, but I also think it is important to note that means it isn't an inherent experience that applies across the board and that those that are able to maturely process such emotions (and those unable to feel those emotions in the first place, though that's a much bigger issue) will not have this sort of reaction.

"MEAT MECH" just became my favorite quote.

I think a big problem is that with 5e you build your character, create the backstory with this all taking time and thought. With older versions you simply rolled stats and began to play your character's backstory for the first few levels. Death has significantly different weight with each of these methods. 5e leans heavily on plot armour and with death saving throws it always feels awkward.

This was really interesting. I'm going to have to run Johan Huizinga's Magic Circle past my DM for approval, because it's not Magic Circle RAW.

I’m really glad you make the content you make - did not expect to be having phenomenology for breakfast, but it’s a welcome treat!

Meanwhile me: Uncomfortably coming to terms with the phrase "meat mech" (3:14) making a lot of sense.

Yes, we do. The list of planned characters must go through.

Personally I don't like when my characters die because of trauma. Every time a person or character I care about dies, I don't only feel the grief about them. My brain connects it to every other death. I'm guessing everyone experiences this to some extent. It just hurts every time. And I've seen it so many times that I'm tired of it.

I think this is the first time anyone has helped my neuro-divergent theatre-kid brain understand why on earth the rest of my family cheers and yells at the screen when they watch sport... So thank you!

Start of the video: We don't want to die, sooo....

Still impressed you pulled this out in the middle of a stream, without needing to read anything. Happy to see it refined here.

Great video, keep the steam up! And great work, Editor Jack!

For me the problem with removing death from a RPG is that your players then never really get the opportunity to be brave. They only get to play at being brave, like they were playing a video game and could always reload. Fine if that is what you are after, but I believe that RPGs have so much more to offer than that. To reference The Neverending Story, these books, RPG books, are something special. These books are not safe.

End of video: Yes. That. What she said. Thank you for putting thought and research into this

I think therefore I am a level 12 BladeSinger/Monk multiclass 🔥 Awesome Essay on Legs as always Dael!

Fun video. While the conversation regarding philosophical romanticism and DnD is an interesting one, it's worth noting the former has some drawbacks in its broader application, as demonstrated by Heidegger's mid century german pals, or Lenin's reimagining of the rural economy. Phenomenology is great in its application to imaginary worlds but needs to respect the harder rules of this one if applied therein. In DnD I dodge the whole fear of death thing by having a second char sheet ready to go. That way I'm cool with doing dangerous stuff in game, my guy either earns the title hero or dies impressively, both of which add to the story in a way safe play would not.

Thank you for coming back :) If I think this video was really good, then I hope you know it is :D

Dael: "Because of the Greeks." Me: "Because they're gay, your honor." So yes, correct

Coming from a GURPS player, we don't want our characters to die because they have personality and a life of their own. D&D characters have always been really shallow in comparison. That said, people get really attached to something they have 'stepped into the shoes of'.

Dael, this is one of the most PHENOMENAL RU-vid videos I've ever seen. Thank you for it. Sure, I've heard each of these concepts on their own at different points in my life, but you've put them all together so artfully.

I like how you actually make philosophy fun to listen to!! :)

i just shared this video with several people then got to "MY HANDS JUST MADE A FART NOISE!" excellent decision

What a wonderfully done philosophical piece. You've truly shown the depths of your knowledge and intelligence here, Dael!

Interesting stuff as always. Glad you're making videos again.

I'm almost certain I'm in the minority where it's not that I ever seek out my character’s death, but I'm almost always 110% down for them to meet their end or sustain an injury. I think for me, though, it's less of a focus on the character and more on the story. It's less personalized. Instead, every scrape with death is exciting and adds more profound experiences in that character’s life. And if death ever happens, it always leaves a lasting impression on the rest of the story and a sense of catharsis.

Another great think piece by Dael. Eat your phenomenological heart out, Husserl! It’s a complex path she treads, but this is basically a great argument for why following Rules As Written (RAW) is so important for creating a shared sense of verisimilitude in the game, especially including rules for Death and Dying. The more concrete and universally applicable these rules are (and the less arbitrary adjudication involving them is), the more real the game can feel for some Players. “My game, my rules”-type DMs undermine and fragment the foundation for the ultimate potential of shared spaces that come into being along the lines that Dael is describing. “Our game, our rules” goes a lot farther towards establishing and underwriting the consequences of death in the virtual reality of D&D, especially in The Seven Winds where life is cheap and death does come quickly. That’s why the longer I play the game, the less capricious follies like “The Rule of Cool” matter for me, and the more concepts like “Making The Rules Cool” do. And that’s true for me regardless of what side of the DM screen I’m sitting on. Thanks Dael!

This is your best poetic waxing. Wow, you did the words thing real good