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

[Maxperson]

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.

Just a minor nitpick, but you also of your highest prepared spells or spell slots, depending on caster type.

 

[Graybeard]

I think character death should be an option in the game. The GM/DM shouldn't purposely try to kill off the PCs. Sometimes PCs do stupid things and die as a result. If the encounter is too difficult because the GM/DM made it that way, then the PCs should have the option to retreat if they want to. I have had GMs warn the players when we were level 1 that attacking the monster was a bad idea. He had us roll Int checks before providing that info though.

 

[pogre]

Character death is one stake in our games. If I ever had a player say to me that it was important to them that their character not die - I would honor that. I just do not have anyone in that category currently at my table. Yes, I have asked.

I am glad that 5e is not the PC sausage grinder that 1e was/is. Constant death can make for a tedious game too.

A couple of campaigns ago my players spent a fair amount of time planning for an encounter. Someone pointed out the risks of the plans and that it could absolutely result in a TPK. Everyone agreed it was worth the risk. Their plan worked to perfection and the PCs were barely scratched. There was palpable air of disappointment at the table.

I play mostly with family and old friends. They know how I run and they like it for the most part. If that were not the case, I think it would be a worthwhile conversation prior to the campaign kicking off.

I am not a fan of TPKs at all. I put a lot of work into my campaigns. I expect most campaigns to last until the late teen levels or level 20. However, one of my players favorite gaming stories of all time was an encounter that ended in a TPK.

That was a long-winded way of saying - know your table.

 

[jmartkdr2]

Just a minor nitpick, but you also of your highest prepared spells or spell slots, depending on caster type.

If you wanted to be specific, you'd need to record which spells you learned at each level - including which ones, if any, you swapped out.

And then you'd need to decide if level-up choices are locked in or erased. If my fighter drops from 6 to 5, can I take my 6th level in cleric now, because having such a brush with death made my find religion? If my BM fighter dropped from 3 to 2, could I now choose EK as my subclass?

"You take a -1 penalty to rolls" is just so much cleaner, but isn't really level drain.

 

[Maxperson]

If you wanted to be specific, you'd need to record which spells you learned at each level - including which ones, if any, you swapped out.

And then you'd need to decide if level-up choices are locked in or erased. If my fighter drops from 6 to 5, can I take my 6th level in cleric now, because having such a brush with death made my find religion? If my BM fighter dropped from 3 to 2, could I now choose EK as my subclass?

"You take a -1 penalty to rolls" is just so much cleaner, but isn't really level drain.

Yeah. They gave a -1 to everything and lose one of your highest spells/slots to make it more streamlined. If you missed that second save, though, you lost the level and all abilities associated with it. I always tracked what I rolled for hit points at each level on my sheet just in case, but I can't remember actually ever losing a level. Missing two saves was very unlikely.

 

[transmission89]

That's another distortion trying to reframe the problem so it's easier to attack. more lethal is not the same as more deaths. I've killed more 5e characters than 3.5/pf characters. The big difference between the two though is that after you subtract the ones who were trying to get killed & working hard at doing that after getting my cooperation. almost without fail those 5e characters were shocked that they died. Save for one low level character who was effectively killed by stupid behavior on his part followed by stupid behavior from a warlock before someone could cast healing word they pretty much all came back through raise dead or similar. Even that low level character was given an option to come back & declined n favor of making a new character. The dial is set wrong when players can work to get killed and still fail because of reasons like "bob casts healing word between monsterA dropping me & monsterB dropping me again" or "the gm has the monsters attack someone else that is a threat rather than executing me"

That gets into your second bolded point. The question is irrelevant because it's based on a misrepresentation of the "risk" that is desired

“more lethal is not the same as more deaths”

That’s pretty much the definition of what lethal is.

The fact that your 5e characters were shocked that they died shows there is the cultural expectation now of less risk. Which goes back to my first post yet again...

 

[transmission89]

Balanced encounters can serve narrative play. They also serve playing an ultra-hard skirmish wargame, if that's what you're looking to do.

Encounter guidelines are a tool, nothing more. They are there to serve you (or you can simply ignore them). If you think of them as shackles, then you've placed the cart in front of the horse.

Yes, narratively focused games are much easier to do with good encounter guidelines. That doesn't equate to everyone who uses encounter guidelines playing narrative-focused games.

Indeed you are right, they are a tool to help a DM balance an encounter. In doing so, you have assessed and quantified, measured out the risk, to some extent reducing it because it is a known factor. But, what I’m saying is they’ve contributed to the cultural mindset shift in which many don’t actually want the risk as per the original post.

For example, wotc first introduced a detailed measuring tool in the 3e dmg, explaining to the novice DM what the tool was for. Interestingly, their early 3e modules didn’t follow these guidelines for many of the encounters. This led to quite a backlash from the community at the time.

The cart before the horse is here: they went from a tool useful to the DM to becoming an expectation of what should be encountered at play. Thus mitigating the potential risk.

 

[Imaculata]

I have had GMs warn the players when we were level 1 that attacking the monster was a bad idea. He had us roll Int checks before providing that info though.

I hate that. If a DM wants to warn his players, he should just do so. The Int check is often just there for no valid reason. As a DM, I presume the pc's have some level of common sense. If I want to foreshadow a tough opponent or a bad decission, I can just straight up tell them.

An Int check should be a response to an inquiry made by the players. It should be the result of an action on the part of the players, not an action made by the DM.

Bob: "Does this tunnel look structually sound to me?"

Me: "Roll an int check."

 

[Graybeard]

To be fair to the GM, the players were fairly new to 5e and we were playing a module and it was early in the story. I think if we had been more experienced with the system there would not have been a call for an Int check. We saw an NPC fighting a monster and being the fools we were, decided we needed to help. We didn't know the NPC was far more skilled than us poor level 1 PCs.

 

[Fanaelialae]

Indeed you are right, they are a tool to help a DM balance an encounter. In doing so, you have assessed and quantified, measured out the risk, to some extent reducing it because it is a known factor. But, what I’m saying is they’ve contributed to the cultural mindset shift in which many don’t actually want the risk as per the original post.

For example, wotc first introduced a detailed measuring tool in the 3e dmg, explaining to the novice DM what the tool was for. Interestingly, their early 3e modules didn’t follow these guidelines for many of the encounters. This led to quite a backlash from the community at the time.

The cart before the horse is here: they went from a tool useful to the DM to becoming an expectation of what should be encountered at play. Thus mitigating the potential risk.

I would interpret that to mean that the desire for less lethal, more balanced games existed well before the tools to do so did. Once the tools existed, those players who wanted that style of game likely were able to more effectively communicate those desires (by asking the DM to follow the encounter guidelines). In other words, I don't believe any cultural shift actually occurred. I think the demand for that style of play already existed, but was held back for lacking the tools be effectively implemented.

That said, I think you may be overestimating how many groups play this way. I can think of quite a number of campaigns where the DM followed the encounter guidelines and yet still managed to rack up a high body count (in one particular 3.5 campaign we averaged about one death per session).