Do players want challenging games, with a real chance of death?

[ismrpg]

I think this thread has a flawed premise, in that it lumps together two things that don't intrinsically go together.

"Challenge" and "risk of death" are not directly connected. You can have a game that has relatively little challenge but where the failure state is still death. And you can have challenging games where death is pretty much off the table, but other forms of loss are.

Its not flawed, it's asking a particular question about 'challenge,' that challenge is keeping a PC alive, and whether players want that challenge. Of course there are other things that can challenge players in a game but this was not what I was interested in asking about. I specifically want to know if a high risk of PC death is something modern players want/enjoy.

 

[ismrpg]

I mean, it's a false dichotomy to make it either-or, flatly.

So you're starting off on a bad basis there.

Realistically most players want something between those extremes. Almost no players want what you describe, or different games would be much more popular. It's as simple as that. There are absolutely tons and tons of TT RPGs like that, and most of them are broadly unpopular. Further, it's clear TT RPGs evolved away from that, rather than towards it.

Hmmmm, not sure what the false dichotomy is? You can make assumptions into my questions (the two general ends of the spectrum) but at no time did I think or suggest there are only two options, hence the open question at the end. Its just a general request for opinions on whether modern players like having the risk of death in the game (of course this also only relates to games where death of PCs exists too!)

I'd be interested to know which RPGs with high difficulty levels are the unpopular ones. I haven't played many different TTRPGs so keen to learn lessons from both sides. Thanks.

 

[ismrpg]

It is worth noting that the OP has been told of this on another forum as well. (RPGGeek.com).
It's well within their rights to try; it may or may not go over well, but this feels like Heartbreaker syndrome.

Only relevant question I asked on rpggeek related to whether technical combat systems were still of interest to GMs/players. Nothing to do with difficulty of surviving in the game. What exactly are you referring to?

 

[Lanefan]

I largely agree with this, with two notable caveats:

1. I'm not sure death ought to be privileged as a failure state, if you're allowed to immediately select a new playing piece. Most players bring in a new character after death, and modern gaming norms usually mean a character at the same level, with comparable equipment.

Indeed. For death to mean anything as a loss condition, replacement characters need to be brought in at slightly lower level than the party average (note that I'm not one who advocates starting all replacements right at 1st level unless the party average is itself very low) and-or without quite the same build-up of equipment.

As a side effect, this also gently encourages reviving the dead character in games where such things are available.

2. I jumped into this thread largely to take down the inverse of the point you take to task here: characters dying regularly doesn't necessarily have a lot to say about the underlying difficulty. Death is often pretty casual and random in games, and in those cases a high death rate doesn't actually tell you anything about the challenge the game presents.

Luck can present its own challenges.

 

[aramis erak]

Only relevant question I asked on rpggeek related to whether technical combat systems were still of interest to GMs/players. Nothing to do with difficulty of surviving in the game. What exactly are you referring to?

Which shows you didn't comprehend the responses. Especially mine.

 

[AnotherGuy]

Death can be replaced with consequences (loss conditions, campaign story shift, mechanical baggage, additional or modifying character traits/flaws/ideals/bonds, losses such as in-game relationship loss or character defining item/power/status loss, major transformational change...etc) which hopefully elevate the story.

I use perma death and/or consequences depending on the situation.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Its not flawed, it's asking a particular question about 'challenge,' that challenge is keeping a PC alive, and whether players want that challenge. Of course there are other things that can challenge players in a game but this was not what I was interested in asking about. I specifically want to know if a high risk of PC death is something modern players want/enjoy.

Except you didn't specify that, you just apparently assumed it. You asked "Do players want to be challenged." That doesn't say anything about death per se (though your prior paragraph clearly assumed it). If you'd asked something like "Do players want their characters to be genuinely threatened with death" I wouldn't have responded as I did.

 

[bloodtide]

Its not flawed, it's asking a particular question about 'challenge,' that challenge is keeping a PC alive, and whether players want that challenge. Of course there are other things that can challenge players in a game but this was not what I was interested in asking about. I specifically want to know if a high risk of PC death is something modern players want/enjoy.

Yes. Really the same as it always was.

When it comes to games, some people have always only enjoyed the more soft, fluff, happy type games. For them games are just a random social activity with friends: sit around, laugh, tell jokes and bond with each other. On one really keeps score in the game, and it really does not matter as everyone 'wins' just by playing the game and being there.

Others want a much more serious game, with the real goal of giving themselves a challenge to over come. They want to use their skills and be challenged, and for games in general they want to 'win'.

So, for just RPGS, in modern types there has been a shift towards the more soft, fluff, happy type game play. To mirror the same "popular" shift in society.

And this Fog settles over RPGS. About a third of us, as always, play the hard, challenging game. The other third only plays the more soft, fluff, happy type games. And mot game designers, authors and such are in this third. So most games are written in the more soft, fluff, happy type style. This leaves the last third, the undecided, in a bit of a spot. They likely know more soft, fluff, happy type gamers. And the rules are written in the more soft, fluff, happy type games. So most of this last third do lean heavy on to the more soft, fluff, happy type games. After all, chances are that most of the DMs they know only run the the more soft, fluff, happy type game play style. So they have to like it, just to play.

But when given a chance many in the 'undecided' third....and even a few in the die hard "the more soft, fluff, happy type game play" is the only way to play third....do find that they really like the more challenging game.

 

[Shardstone]

Yes. Really the same as it always was.

When it comes to games, some people have always only enjoyed the more soft, fluff, happy type games. For them games are just a random social activity with friends: sit around, laugh, tell jokes and bond with each other. On one really keeps score in the game, and it really does not matter as everyone 'wins' just by playing the game and being there.

Others want a much more serious game, with the real goal of giving themselves a challenge to over come. They want to use their skills and be challenged, and for games in general they want to 'win'.

So, for just RPGS, in modern types there has been a shift towards the more soft, fluff, happy type game play. To mirror the same "popular" shift in society.

And this Fog settles over RPGS. About a third of us, as always, play the hard, challenging game. The other third only plays the more soft, fluff, happy type games. And mot game designers, authors and such are in this third. So most games are written in the more soft, fluff, happy type style. This leaves the last third, the undecided, in a bit of a spot. They likely know more soft, fluff, happy type gamers. And the rules are written in the more soft, fluff, happy type games. So most of this last third do lean heavy on to the more soft, fluff, happy type games. After all, chances are that most of the DMs they know only run the the more soft, fluff, happy type game play style. So they have to like it, just to play.

But when given a chance many in the 'undecided' third....and even a few in the die hard "the more soft, fluff, happy type game play" is the only way to play third....do find that they really like the more challenging game.

Your claim about game designers preferring fluff is not true. There has been a large and continuous surge of more intense stuff, and most popular rpgs, kickstarters, and products, indie or otherwise, are not soft and happy.

 

[Jd Smith1]

Your claim about game designers preferring fluff is not true. There has been a large and continuous surge of more intense stuff, and most popular rpgs, kickstarters, and products, indie or otherwise, are not soft and happy.

Not really. Fluffy and happy seem the norm. Old games and very small print are the only ones that seem to have anything resembling intense.

There a lot of games claiming to be intense, but they don't deliver.