Preserving the Fear Inherent in 1st Level

[Satyrn]

Concerning exploding orcs, I used that in a campaign ... then the orcs figured out the smaller the creature that drank the potion the bigger the explosion when they died (something I kind of stole from an old original Star Trek show).

I had goblin "artillery" screaming as they were catapulted across the sky, kamikaze kobolds sending people running in terror. It was glorious.

That's the sort of thing I was picturing: just how many fun ways I could use it for my Borderlands-style suicide psychos.

I still don't have a preferred solution for them yet.

 

[jasper]

I have 121 sessions going 2 to 6 hours with 39 deaths which may disprove you 5E any deadly but here are some suggestions.
Tier 1 Average damage, Tier 2 3/4 max damager. All the rest max damage on attacks.
Death saves 12 at Tier 1, 14 at tier 2, etc.

 

[nswanson27]

Intellect devourers. Even at level 20, I'd still have a healthy fear of those things.

 

[5ekyu]

I started a new campaign last night, running the Yawning Portal version of Sunless Citadel in Eberron for a group consisting of a mix of lapsed and current players. The first thing that happened was a tense, close-to-TPK fight against 3 giant rats. It was scary, but fun scary. But having run quite a bit of 5E in the past, I know that particular feel goes away pretty quickly. It is pretty difficult to kill 5E with even a couple levels under their belt but I think the game benefits from a healthy dose of mortal fear.

What methods have you found to keep the game dangerous even as PCs rise in level? What methods have you tried that did not work out or otherwise ended up not using? What's your take on high lethality D&D as it relates to player engagement and enjoyment?

Thanks!

Well, what i see at first level in 5e and similar is the "mortal fear" of death at any moment. most any weapon strike can crit and drop anyone. Any roll can drop you and put you at risk of death and if you use the massive damage rule even a lucky axe strike might one shot dead you at any moment.

Dice are the gods.

that is not a flavor i try to keep alive and am glad it goes away. i usually actually rule it out in house rules session zero.

I prefer for the game to transition its "tension" as the game progresses. Esrliest stages survival and routine challenges are rough. By tier-2 things have shifted beyond the mundane and a host of other challenges and tensions arise.

The tension i prefer to keep and cultivate through the campaign is that of "loss". The challenges have stakes and risks and matter not because you might die (time to teleport or fly away) but because there is a reason you are fighting this thing and a reason why you need to win here and now and losing the fight loses you that thing.

Its like the difference ebwteeen old school wreslting angles and new school indy dancing.

OLD SCHOOL: This cage match is for the belt and if the challenger's manager loses his head gets shaved. The champ wants payback for the beatdown the heels did to his partner who is at ringside in a wheelchair. The heels know this is their last shot at the title. blood will flow cuz these guys hate each other.

NEW SCHOOL: Wow what a fantastic series of coordinated stunts one after the other with little if any drama.

To make your matches... err fights matter a lot... make the outcomes matter a lot and not just try and make it about whose stunt work wins out over the other.

heck, do it that way and even some wins might be costly making the PCs choose between vengence now or saving what matters. "We wont win by killing what we hate, but by saving what we love."

Put another way - if a Gm sets up winning and losing as stand-ins for controlling events and losing control of events instead of living or not - a lot of doors open up for his sessions and focus.

 

[Oofta]

[MENTION=6919838]5ekyu[/MENTION] while I agree with what you're saying, what if your campaign doesn't revolve around fighting the BBEG (or a big bad evil organization)?

What if it's more of an exploration/old school set of dungeon crawls? I usually end up having story arcs that pit you against different foes or challenges but sometimes I want to run a campaign where it's not about saving the world or even the town the PCs call their home base. I guess you can always add in the "oops, we woke something up" angle, but that only works now and then.

How do you add variety? So that sometimes they're fearing for their own lives and other times fearing for the lives of others?

 

[Reynard]

I don't care much for big epic plots, saving the world, noble crusades, or any of that. I like D&D built around adventures into the dark places of the world in search of treasure, glory or perhaps the keys to personal power. I mean, it is fun when stories emerge out of that kind of play, and relationships between characters (both PC and NPC) enrich the game, but I try and steer clear of railroady plots and making the PCs the center of the universe: they are just some fortune hunters going on their own way, and while they are the stars of their own tragic tales they aren't anything of import to the world at large.

As such, lethality matters. Are the PCs willing to risk life and limb for that gemstone or magical sword or secret tome of knowledge? If the whole world is on the line, the answer is to simple. If it is just pride or greed driving the characters, though, little choices are suddenly much more meaningful.

 

[Satyrn]

[What if it's more of an exploration/old school set of dungeon crawls? I usually end up having story arcs that pit you against different foes or challenges but sometimes I want to run a campaign where it's not about saving the world or even the town the PCs call their home base. I guess you can always add in the "oops, we woke something up" angle, but that only works now and then.

How do you add variety? So that sometimes they're fearing for their own lives and other times fearing for the lives of others?

I've got that "oops, we woke something up" as an everpresent possibility (that I hope never actually comes to pass, since it would mean the total destruction of the campaign's central city . . . which happens in the future during some other catastrophe in a previous campaign).

Anyway, we haven't got far enough into my current megadungeon where one of the stories is about the city's guilds trying to conquer (and hold) territory from the hobgoblin bandits and fey monstrosities. The players should be employed to do some of that themselves.

I'm planning on quests that follow this basic structure (part 3 is more like a possible complication, and the bit that changes each time the players engage in these Conquer Quests )

Part 1) The players are hired by a Guild as an assault force to take over a building for a Guild
Part 2) Requires them holding the building until Guild forces arrive to take "longterm" control.
Part 3) That Guild force gets waylaid, so the players are forced to choose between helping them (and risking losing their building in the meantime) or continue holding the building (and wait longer for a second Guild force to arrive)

This would have them fearing for their own lives, for their allies', and as a bonus, fearing for their quest goals, too.

 

[5ekyu]

[MENTION=6919838]5ekyu[/MENTION] while I agree with what you're saying, what if your campaign doesn't revolve around fighting the BBEG (or a big bad evil organization)?

What if it's more of an exploration/old school set of dungeon crawls? I usually end up having story arcs that pit you against different foes or challenges but sometimes I want to run a campaign where it's not about saving the world or even the town the PCs call their home base. I guess you can always add in the "oops, we woke something up" angle, but that only works now and then.

How do you add variety? So that sometimes they're fearing for their own lives and other times fearing for the lives of others?

Well the question posted resolved around keeping the sense of risk alive.

if the campaign is focused on explore etc not fight - then obviously things would be different - xp/advancement not keyed to combat for one.

As a GM if there is no "need" or "stake" in the outcome, why would PCs or anyone stay in a fight where there is risk of death? Are they just suicidal for fun?

Obviously, if they are given no choice, it doesn't matter. if none of their choices can escape or avoid the fight, they have zero control, then hey you have your death match.

But i wasn't assuming that to be the case.

So then you get to "what does matter to the PCs?" That gives you stakes.

if your PCs are "dont give a crap about civilians" then why would they fight in a fight they may lose and die?

Well, if the PCs are focused on exploring and getting into ancient places or secrets, maybe there is a rival team after the same "finds" and then the "conflicts" may not be fights at all but getting around things, finding things before the others do. or maybe the sides are willing to fight - but maybe that fight is a skirmish to kill the horses or distraction while the climbing gear is stolen or a key map stone is spirited away or destroyed.

There is no generic answer to your questions - beyond "what are the characters after? Why are they here? What will they fight for?

those answers should guide a GMs choices of adversaries and stakes, right? It has to be something that matters to the characters.

For me tho, if we were just wandering around for no particular reason in character, any fight we could avoid that wasn't a squash would be one we avoid unless we see a clear reason in character to do so.

Then again, in such a focus on explore game, leveling likely wouldn't be keyed to fighting. Fighting may even be counter to advancing if the time it takes to resolve loses you more "advancement" from exploration time.

 

[5ekyu]

I've got that "oops, we woke something up" as an everpresent possibility (that I hope never actually comes to pass, since it would mean the total destruction of the campaign's central city . . . which happens in the future during some other catastrophe in a previous campaign).

Anyway, we haven't got far enough into my current megadungeon where one of the stories is about the city's guilds trying to conquer (and hold) territory from the hobgoblin bandits and fey monstrosities. The players should be employed to do some of that themselves.

I'm planning on quests that follow this basic structure (part 3 is more like a possible complication, and the bit that changes each time the players engage in these Conquer Quests )

Part 1) The players are hired by a Guild as an assault force to take over a building for a Guild
Part 2) Requires them holding the building until Guild forces arrive to take "longterm" control.
Part 3) That Guild force gets waylaid, so the players are forced to choose between helping them (and risking losing their building in the meantime) or continue holding the building (and wait longer for a second Guild force to arrive)

This would have them fearing for their own lives, for their allies', and as a bonus, fearing for their quest goals, too.

Choices that matter and consequences for losing/winning... yup... thats pretty much it.

 

[Shiroiken]

Changing the rest structure will impact the deadliness, especially if they're forced to push on after most resources have been spent. The 8 hour short rest and 1 week long rest makes even simple tasks much harder.

Change Death by Massive Damage to be extra HP equal to Level plus Con score. At lower levels, it's not likely to matter, but soon healing from 0 HP becomes a risky process. With only a few HP, taking lethal damage is much more likely, even without a critical hit. Being attacked while down is much more likely to kill, since it's also a critical hit, and random AoE can also cause instant death (rather than just a failed death save).