D&D General Do players even like the risk of death?

[Maxperson]

The players will only see something like level drain as negative if they don't want it in the game. Assuming that they are experienced and know their own tastes, they know whether they like it or not. If they aren't experienced, running a one shot where they get to try it out is a good way to give them that experience.

It can also be about the implementation. 1e and 2e had horrible implementations of it. 3e went too far in the other direction. 1e and 2e not only cost you the level, but you lost all experience you had gained towards your next level and could never regain those lost experience points. That meant, and this happened to me, if you were 5th level and were 99% of the way to 6th level, got energy drained to 4th level and then restored, you were back to the beginning of 5th again. You lost that 99% you had earned and had no recourse. I hated 1e and 2e energy drain, because of that. 3e energy drain I liked, but would have been better if you only got one save and not two. Two saves meant you rarely actually lost the level.

 

[Democratus]

As I said in the post above the fact that the ring was melted was not why it was interesting. The emotional weight was the lost elven love - and it was described as backstory. Anything can be melted in backstory.

It wasn't backstory. It happened during the game. The lost love was the player's wife's PC who was killed in that Fireball.

All of this was emergent gameplay. And all of it was made better by the mechanic allowing permanant loss of things acquired along the way.

You might not like the idea of losing things - but that doesn't mean it doesn't work for helping to create great games.

 

[Fanaelialae]

It can also be about the implementation. 1e and 2e had horrible implementations of it. 3e went too far in the other direction. 1e and 2e not only cost you the level, but you lost all experience you had gained towards your next level and could never regain those lost experience points. That meant, and this happened to me, if you were 5th level and were 99% of the way to 6th level, got energy drained to 4th level and then restored, you were back to the beginning of 5th again. You lost that 99% you had earned and had no recourse. I hated 1e and 2e energy drain, because of that. 3e energy drain I liked, but would have been better if you only got one save and not two. Two saves meant you rarely actually lost the level.

Yeah, definitely it's going to fall to personal tastes. I've even conversed with people who've said they like 1e/2e level drain.

Something that I've been thinking about today, along these lines, is level drain and Dark Souls. In case you're unfamiliar with the game (feel free to skip this paragraph if you're familiar), it's considered fairly hard. However, an interesting distinction is that it's surprisingly fair for a hard game. I don't like games that are hard for the sake of being hard, but I love Dark Souls. To begin with, there are enough respawn points that you almost never lose more than a few minutes of progress when you die. Saves are automatic, so you can't simply reload. The way experience points (souls) work is that any unspent souls are dropped where you died. If you die a second time before you can retrieve them, they're lost, but if you manage to retrieve them then you've lost basically nothing. So a significant portion of the gameplay is about planning ahead so you don't make the same mistake twice.

I was thinking about this in relation to level drain. What if level drain could be reversed by killing the monster that drained you before it becomes permanent (after a long rest or such)? That could make for some interesting and exciting gameplay I think, and it might be better received than the standard implemention.

 

[tetrasodium]

The players will only see something like level drain as negative if they don't want it in the game. Assuming that they are experienced and know their own tastes, they know whether they like it or not. If they aren't experienced, running a one shot where they get to try it out is a good way to give them that experience.

I mean, I get what you're saying, but I disagree that a designers role is to design a game that's "dialed low" so that the GM can be "awesome" when they house rule it into a better game. Better to just set the default dials where the majority enjoys it.

Those groups that have a different preference can adjust those dials as desired. If the group is on board, they won't see turning dials down as a bad thing. If they're not on board, they'll complain even if you don't turn the dials high enough (based on my own experience from previous editions).

Trying to force the players to eat their "broccoli" is misguided IMO, when the "ice cream" is just as healthy. Either your players will like broccoli or they won't. Trying to force feed it to them is likely to simply result in an activity that is meant to be fun, being less fun.

You are trying to twist away from the problem to focus on other things rather than admit that the gm is setup to be the bad guy. the nice guy parent might say similar when confronted by the other parent. I even have an example of how it works when going from the GM's idea to make self written changes to the gm wanting to use some rule wotc put out thatweakens the players. I've tried to push for reduced attribute arrays using the old low power array of 9 10 11 12 12 13 to provide more room for magic items & other stuff in one of my groups for more than one campaign including one a few months back that they rejected. Wotc put out the survivor stuff in the new ravenloft book where the array is... 9 9 10 11 12 13. That's a drop from a 19 point pointbuy to to a 16 point pointbuy. When I pitched the same campaign everyone in the same group was thrilled.

They were thrilled because I went from the bad guy forcing them to eat this weird broccoli thing before I could give them ice cream in the form of things like magic items to the nice guy who's going to be taking them for ice cream in the form of magic items in the campaign because broccoli happens to be on the menu.

 

[Fanaelialae]

You are trying to twist away from the problem to focus on other things rather than admit that the gm is setup to be the bad guy. the nice guy parent might say similar when confronted by the other parent. I even have an example of how it works when going from the GM's idea to make self written changes to the gm wanting to use some rule wotc put out thatweakens the players. I've tried to push for reduced attribute arrays using the old low power array of 9 10 11 12 12 13 to provide more room for magic items & other stuff in one of my groups for more than one campaign including one a few months back that they rejected. Wotc put out the survivor stuff in the new ravenloft book where the array is... 9 9 10 11 12 13. That's a drop from a 19 point pointbuy to to a 16 point pointbuy. When I pitched the same campaign everyone in the same group was thrilled.

They were thrilled because I went from the bad guy forcing them to eat this weird broccoli thing before I could give them ice cream in the form of things like magic items to the nice guy who's going to be taking them for ice cream in the form of magic items in the campaign because broccoli happens to be on the menu.

I disagree that the GM is set up to be the bad guy.

WOTC did a survey and found that most players prefer whole wheat bread to rye. You prefer rye. You seem to want that WOTC makes all of their sandwiches out of rye, that way your players will be forced to eat it, and if you choose to let them have a slice of whole wheat they'll be thrilled with you.

Then this Ravenloft supplement comes out with all of their sandwiches made from pumpernickel, and now your players are happy that instead of that they get to eat rye.

I'm from a school of DMing where if players prefer whole wheat, I let them eat whole wheat. I don't think it's reasonable to expect WOTC to force feed people rye, when most people want whole wheat. From both a business and a design perspective that makes zero sense. I understand why you want it, but even that doesn't really make much sense from my perspective.

 

[tetrasodium]

I disagree that the GM is set up to be the bad guy.

WOTC did a survey and found that most players prefer whole wheat bread to rye. You prefer rye. You seem to want that WOTC makes all of their sandwiches out of rye, that way your players will be forced to eat it, and if you choose to let them have a slice of whole wheat they'll be thrilled with you.

Then this Ravenloft supplement comes out with all of their sandwiches made from pumpernickel, and now your players are happy that instead of that they get to eat rye.

I'm from a school of DMing where if players prefer whole wheat, I let them eat whole wheat. I don't think it's reasonable to expect WOTC to force feed people rye, when most people want whole wheat. From both a business and a design perspective that makes zero sense. I understand why you want it, but even that doesn't really make much sense from my perspective.

it doesn't matter what "most players [who were part of a survey]" said on a survey that may or may not have been well designed. Wotc also loves to say that 5e was simplified to enable people to tweak it to their needs. part of doing things to enable people to enable people to tweak the game to their needs involves not enforcing one particular style and making it a friendly environment for different people who want a different style to actually take them up on that matter. The fact that you've gone from trying to distract from how wotc sets up anyone who wants a more lethal or lower powered game as the bad guy to declaring anyone who wants that trying to force unwanted fun on the players in our last couple posts is telling. It's all well and good to give players what they "prefer" but there are limits to that and if the dials are set so high there is no room left to give ven that is not possible.

 

[Fanaelialae]

it doesn't matter what "most players [who were part of a survey]" said on a survey that may or may not have been well designed. Wotc also loves to say that 5e was simplified to enable people to tweak it to their needs. part of doing things to enable people to enable people to tweak the game to their needs involves not enforcing one particular style and making it a friendly environment for different people who want a different style to actually take them up on that matter. The fact that you've gone from trying to distract from how wotc sets up anyone who wants a more lethal or lower powered game as the bad guy to declaring anyone who wants that trying to force unwanted fun on the players in our last couple posts is telling. It's all well and good to give players what they "prefer" but there are limits to that and if the dials are set so high there is no room left to give ven that is not possible.

It's absolutely possible to make 5e a more lethal game or add in punishing mechanics like level drain. It really helps if that's actually the kind of game your players want to play in though.

WOTC isn't making DMs like you the bad guy, though I understand why you think that.

They're making the average DM the good guy, by providing a menu of whole wheat sandwiches for a group that will typically prefer whole wheat.

You're never going to convince someone who doesn't like punishing games to like punishing games. My best friend loves this really hard game, Resident Evil Code Veronica. He does knife only runs (the knife is the worst weapon in the game in most respects). I gave the game an honest try and couldn't get past the starting zone. It's probably in his top ten favorite games of all time. Playing it is akin to torture for me.

Either someone likes a style of play or they don't. They ought give it a fair chance if they've never tried it, but if they have and they don't like it, I don't think it's good to try to force it on them. Something like a one shot, where the stakes are low, is a good way to try out something to see if they like it.

 

[transmission89]

In answering the original question, I think that the majority of players who play the modern editions don’t actually want this risk or challenge. They want the illusion of it.

There is an expectation of balanced encounters, where, they can enjoy a tougher end encounter, come out bruised and battered but just about surviving. There is an investment into the character, their story, their arc. The focus shifted from using the character as a vehicle to explore the world, to, using the world as a vehicle to exploring the character.

I’ve seen too many threads, posts and comments where if a player character dies, there is an askance look at the DM, hushed whispers of adversarial DMing, DMs themselves hand wringing at having “accidentally killed PCs” and how this can be “fixed” to believe otherwise.

 

[tetrasodium]

It's absolutely possible to make 5e a more lethal game or add in punishing mechanics like level drain. It really helps if that's actually the kind of game your players want to play in though.

WOTC isn't making DMs like you the bad guy, though I understand why you think that.

They're making the average DM the good guy, by providing a menu of whole wheat sandwiches for a group that will typically prefer whole wheat.

You're never going to convince someone who doesn't like punishing games to like punishing games. My best friend loves this really hard game, Resident Evil Code Veronica. He does knife only runs (the knife is the worst weapon in the game in most respects). I gave the game an honest try and couldn't get past the starting zone. It's probably in his top ten favorite games of all time. Playing it is akin to torture for me.

Either someone likes a style of play or they don't. They ought give it a fair chance if they've never tried it, but if they have and they don't like it, I don't think it's good to try to force it on them. Something like a one shot, where the stakes are low, is a good way to try out something to see if they like it.

actually they aren't "making the average dm the good guy" because that hypothetical gm is not making any changes. By setting so many dials too high they are even denying said gm the opportunity to be the good guy. Past editions made allowances for both by including sections where the dial was set in one position whie guidance was included talking about the reasons & resulting effects that could result in changing the dial slightly up/down along with things to look out for when doing that.

Also your distorting "more lethal" by twisting it to an extreme position of "punishing games" to support your position. more lethal than 5e' dial setting where the average wizard having durability on par with woverine & deadpool in loony toons is a far cry from the sort of meatgrinder that one could call "punishing games". 5e forcing DMs to either invoke save or die mechanics or effectively execute a downed player just to put lethality on the table in some meaningful faction makes the current setting on those dials one of a "punishing game" where death feel arbitrary & beyond their control when it happens to a player.

 

[jmartkdr2]

Honestly I think one of the key reasons level drain went away was the increased complexity of levels. In Basic it was fairly simple to figure out what losing a level meant, mechanically. In 3e and later, it got a lot more complicated. That's why 3.5 level drain was re-written to a broad -1 penalty to a bunch of stuff, rather than losing spells known and so on.