New WotC Article - Deadly Dice

[Starfox]

I want to play/run games where the deaths are uncommon or common. Currently they combine for 65% of the vote. However, from the few games I've played and the tons of games I've read about in the last 12 years... that number couldn't be further from the truth.

What gives?

Maybe the anti-death crowd has more bark than numbers? I find that verbose people often are the ones that put a priority on story over action.

 

[Starfox]

Okay, but here's the other side:

If characters never die...

*The characters stop being heroic. [...]

*The players begin to think of their characters as playing pieces [...]

Don't get me wrong; I've observed the "turtling" phenomenon and I've definitely seen problems when the death toll goes too high, but it's important to have stakes. If the outcome of a battle isn't in doubt, why fight it?

Is this something you have actually observed happening, or a rhetoric argument?

 

[ExploderWizard]

If the outcome of a battle isn't in doubt, why fight it?

General Custer?


Having stakes is a good thing, but good play by the PCs means that they are doing everything they can to help ensure the battle isn't in doubt before it begins.

Players that care about preserving the lives of their characters should do battle only when there is a clear plan to achieve victory. That said, no plan actually survives contact with the enemy.

If the players charge in to straight up combat all the time knowing that the odds are heavily in their favor then there is little incentive to plan and approach the situation as if there is something to lose.

 

[Ahnehnois]

Is this something you have actually observed happening, or a rhetoric argument?

I've observed it. In some of my early games, players had frustratingly little sense of meaning to their actions. There were a number of changes as we grew, but me killing a character every now and then was certainly one of them. They learned tactics because of what happened when they made poor decisions. They learned roleplaying because of the sense that their character might not be around the next session, so they had better seize the day.

So yes, I've definitely observed the pitfalls of consequence-free roleplaying. That said, now that the players are different, I ran one campaign where characters essentially couldn't die until the end (unbeknownst to them). It's not an invalid style, but I wouldn't recommend it as the default.

Having stakes is a good thing, but good play by the PCs means that they are doing everything they can to help ensure the battle isn't in doubt before it begins.

Players that care about preserving the lives of their characters should do battle only when there is a clear plan to achieve victory. That said, no plan actually survives contact with the enemy.

If the players charge in to straight up combat all the time knowing that the odds are heavily in their favor then there is little incentive to plan and approach the situation as if there is something to lose.

There is definitely something to be said for context. The players should plan for a battle if possible, and should think tactically as to what can and will be gained from the outcome.