In Dungeons and Dragons, the specter of death supposedly looms over every character. Prior to 3rd Edition a 1st Level character was very often in danger of dying after taking a couple of hits. This high “character mortality rate” was long a part of D&D culture and, in some circles, persists to this day.

I hate it. If players think that their characters will never die in combat then they’ll play recklessly, and will eventually become bored with the game, but is character death the only way to create tension in your game? A good D&D game provides a variety of challenges, not just combat challenges, and these challenges should provide a spectrum of possible outcomes, good and bad.

On the other side of the screen, why would a player even write a backstory for his character if he didn’t expect that character to make it to 2nd Level? I want the players in my game to become invested in the world and in their characters: if they’re motivated to engage the game then the prospect of failing a skill challenge, losing an ally or having to take the long way through Mordor will excite them. The possibility of character death, when raised, should horrify a player, but the “killer DMs” of the 1980s made it old hat.

As a rule of thumb, everybody gets one in my game. If a character picks the wrong fight in the first session or sticks his hand into the mouth of that demon sculpture at the end of the hallway then I’m not afraid to invoke Deus ex Machina just once just to keep them in the game–to give them a chance to build some ties to the campaign, to make that backstory worth their time, and maybe to introduce a story hook (the wandering cleric who saved your life requires a favor of you…).

3rd and 4th Edition have drastically increased both the power and durability of 1st Level characters, which is great, but in a long-term campaign I’ll always give a low-level character one pass. After all…