Your character died. Big deal.

[Fifth Element]

Dnd is a wargame first and foremost. The main aim of the game is to kill stuff and loot their belongings, and then somehow attempt to rationalize your own actions with some storytelling (in a nutshell).

That may be how you play D&D, but many people don't. And yet they still have an enormous amount of fun, and prefer D&D to other systems.

I don't understand the focus on "designer intent". If you can have fun playing the game your way, who cares what the designers intended?

 

[Fifth Element]

There is no victory if the entire party is trampled on by the Tarrasque and awakes a few hours later to see that their home town has been obliterated - and after searching for survivors, all they find is the chewed on corpses of their allies, lovers or parents...

Precisely. "No death" does not automatically imply "you win every encounter."

 

[Mallus]

... but more that it seems that you would be missing out on a lot by not playing it the way the designers intended it be run.

The best thing about D&D is that people have been playing it in ways the designers didn't intend/expect/foresee it to be run since the very start.

 

[Barastrondo]

Dnd is a wargame first and foremost. The main aim of the game is to kill stuff and loot their belongings, and then somehow attempt to rationalize your own actions with some storytelling (in a nutshell).

Only if you learned to play that way. Some people have never known D&D as something where you establish no social relationships, where you don't work toward anything other than your own self-betterment, just because they grew up playing with more character-oriented gamers. To them, that's why D&D is worth bothering with.

Basically, I just feel that if it is less of a tactical wargame, and more of an immersive, storytelling experience you are after, I believe there are easily better alternatives rather than dnd which would suit your purpose better. It is not so much that I am so totalitarian that I expect everyone else to play dnd the same way I do, but more that it seems that you would be missing out on a lot by not playing it the way the designers intended it be run.

That's really up to the individual group to determine, though. What if somebody wants to play an immersive, storytelling experience with bugbears and holy avengers and aboleths and temples to Hextor? If they think D&D is the simplest and easiest way to go about that, even if it means a few house rules, they're probably not wrong.

 

[GrumpyOldMan]

Well, as others have said, Death Flags for NPCs are a possibility. Especially if this is a house rule, you can do it how you prefer anyway, and some groups might definitely prefer to meet their arch villain multiple times (I sometimes miss this opportunity. The satisfaction of defeating a recurring villain is potentially a lot larger then just defeating the villain of the session)

Many years ago, I used to run a Justice Inc. campaign (and that's a game whre it's difficult to kill the PC's) they kept running up against a criminal mastermind. They trapped him in a flooding sewer and only just got out, they sho down his zeppelin - well, you get the idea...

They soon got used to what they called this the Fu Manchu gambit and had a great time.

Badwrongfun???

Not for us.

A lot of posters seem to think that theres is the only way, it isn't guys.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Because there were no choices or rolls that got you to that initiative roll, right? Pardon me if I think these sorts of circumstances are largely mythological.

What was the choice between the Initiative Roll and the Saving Throw?

There is a two step process that's cruicial here:
- Percieving the actual threat.
- Making a decision on how to deal with the threat.

When I open the door to the Save or Die room, I don't know the actual threat. I know just a lot of potential threats, and I have no way of knowing what kind of threat to expect. It's a Schrödinger threat - until I open the box, I don't know whether the cat is alive or dead, until I open the door, I don't know whether there is a Goblin or a Bodak behind it. The situation is in an undetermined state, and I can not make any decisions based on them.

The moment I open the door, I see either a Goblin a Bodak. I know the actual threat. Now, do the rules allow me to react to the actual threat (and especially one that allows me to deal with it?)

Things change a lot if I knew there was a good chance for a Bodak behind this door. Maybe careful research did point it out. In that case, a "Save or Die" threat can be fine, because I obviously decided to ignore the actual threat (or misjudge it). Like when I am killed in the fourth round of combat by my opponents attack. I knew that with my characters current state there was a good likelihood for this to occur. I probably choose to ignore the risk in hope of better luck. Or because it helped me achieve another goal (maybe my comrade wouldn't have to take the blow).

 

[Fifth Element]

The best thing about D&D is that people have been playing it in ways the designers didn't intend/expect/foresee it to be run since the very start.

Indeed. One of the great things about D&D is that it can be played in so many different ways. The more storytelling-oriented systems to which Runestar was presumably referring generally only work for that playstyle. With D&D, you don't have to switch game systems to switch playstyles.

 

[Fenes]

Depending on how much time is invested in a character (writing new concept, building new character's stats, backstory, miniature, sketch, getting inserted into the party), it's a serious drawback for a working player to make a new character. Not everyone has that time to spare.

Not everyone has fun changing characters often.

Not everyone has fun losing a favorite character.

Not everyone has fun risking their favorite character.

And not everyone has fun if there's no risk of character death.

If not everyone has fun, then the game failed at its goal. Such a group should either adjust the playstyle, or split.

As far as "risk" in a game is concerned, compare::


A) GM: "Sir Bolivar died. Make a new Character."

Player 1: "Oh, cool, I can try this new concept with the new build I read about, using the new splatbook I bought. Standard treasure for average party level? My new character will blow my old one away."


B) GM: "The last of your group falls before the might of the Archdevil. You have failed! All is lost, the Fair World is plunged into eternal darkness, and fiends prey on the last free humans!"

Players: "Ok, for the next campaign, I say we pick Greyhawk. I'll be playing a fighter this time."


C) GM: "You failed to foil the plot against Sir Bolivar, and now you all have been branded a traitor to the crown, your families banished and you are on the run from the royal order of knights while the bards spread the fake tale of your treason. Friends turn their back on you, and common folk spit at the mentioning of your name."

Player 1: "Ok... We need to clear our name, and avenge the dead prince. But first we need to escape this island where we jumped ship to, then find a way to tople the real traitor, all while we are reviled throughout the land... Can anyone get rid of those chains, by the way?

 

[Fifth Element]

When I open the door to the Save or Die room, I don't know the actual threat. I know just a lot of potential threats, and I have no way of knowing what kind of threat to expect.

Precisely. The claim that such circumstances are "mythological" seems to mean "I always know what's behind the door", so to speak. A claim which I find hard to believe.

 

[Hussar]

For me, it really depends on what kind of campaign I'm trying to run.

When I ran the World's Largest Dungeon, it was Viking Hat time and take no prisoners. PC death every three sessions on average. And that was PERMANENT PC death. Never mind the raise deads and whatnot that came as well. Out of 6 players, on one managed to survive 50 sessions (and died about 2 sessions later).

It was a blast. But, by the tenth or fifteenth PC death, I could sense a fair bit of reluctance on the part of the players in coming up with much of a backstory for their new toon.

OTOH, in my current campaign, I've drastically reduced lethality. Action Points allow you to not die (takes all your current AP's to stablize at -9, if the whole party get's whacked, or someone decides to CDG you after that, then you're in the dead books). A healbot NPC cleric with lots of healing feats makes sure that they are not going to go down easily.

Can they fail? Oh certainly. There's lots of storylines that could go absolutely sideways. Complete and utter failures. But, for the most part, the PC's are going to be the same ones throughout most of the campaign, barring any pretty spectacular deaths.

I have no problems going either way. It really does depend on your campaign. Decide on what works for you and make sure the players are on the same page.