For my part, there are always enough simultaneous plots going on that failing at any one (or more than one) of them isn't a campaign-ending hard loss. The outcome of failure might indeed be tragic and irreversible, but the game doesn't stop because there's still so much to do! (Including dealing with the consequences of the failure.) The game might change--a failure to successfully defend the party's stronghold might change a game with a home base to something itinerant--but the game doesn't stop just because the PCs failed.I guess I am just curious as to what other parties view as an Acceptable 'We screwed up, we lose' scenario. Does it entirely depend on if it creates a 'satisfying story'? Or can they accept the loss due to screw up/bad decisions even if it ends in an ignoble tragedy for the party?
The exception is if the PCs knowingly opt for a heroic last stand. If they do that, then it's indeed game over if they lose, but since it was their choice I wouldn't call it a "hard loss" so much as an "epic conclusion".
For reference, characters can and do die in my campaigns, they just don't do so very often. They're only going to die if the players make bad choices or get in over their heads. But because I prioritize player agency and telegraphing danger, players routinely have the information they need to be able to make good choices and avoid getting in over their heads. As a result, most character deaths at my table are conscious sacrifices or deliberate gambles. (That's not to say I run easy encounters--my game worlds are full of ultra-deadly, level-inappropriate potential encounters, but since I run Combat-as-War style the expectation is that players only engage those opponents if they've first successfully weighted the odds in their favor. Choosing to engage in a "fair fight" is indeed the sort of deliberate gamble where characters sometimes die.)
I'm honestly not sure where my games fall on the spectrum discussed in this thread. Since character deaths are rare and the result of informed choices, maybe I'm closer to the no-random-death side. On the other hand, the threat of death is still always present (even if it's avoidable) so maybe I'm more on the pro-fear-of-death side.