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

[Maxperson]

I didn’t say that at all. I’m aware there’s a middle ground, which is the structured artificial challenge I was referring too. I’m not so dismissive as to say players want easy street, I’m not into bad wrong funning. None of my statements have been judgemental in nature, merely descriptive of different approaches.

In my opinion, your ideas are off a bit. Even with DMs and players that tailor challenges, the challenges are not artificial at all. If there is even a small possibility of death, then the challenge is present and real. We don't need to roll on random charts like we did in 1e where encounters could be way beyond the PCs in order for challenges to be real and not artificial.

 

[Maxperson]

Not quite. You’d be testing if they’d accept immediate potentially lethal consequence for actions as a response. Doesn’t even have to be in fighting a monster. Again, I imagine quite a few won’t vibe that style. Which means the answer still stands as no to the original question.

It's a faulty question, though. That kind of meat grinder is a completely different style of play. Being willing to play that kind of game doesn't in any way say anything about what other styles I also enjoy. People can and often do enjoy different styles of games. It's like saying that being willing to play Aliens or another "We're all probably going to die" kind of board game means that I won't also like Monopoly, and that if I'm unwilling to play that sort of game, I'd also be unwilling to play an easier game that also has a fail state where we can all lose.

Basically, being willing or unwilling to play one extreme doesn't in any way say whether or not a person would enjoy moderate play or the other extreme.

 

[FrozenNorth]

Speaking only for myself, I absolutely like the risk of death.

We were playing PF2, I made a tactical mistake with my wizard (it happens) and the bandit leader was able to get my character dead to rights separated from the other characters. The bandit was strong enough that he could probably knock me down to zero on his turn, and the group was low on healing.

So...on the bandit’s turn he naturally wasted a turn moving towards the rogue that was further away and not an immediate threat without attacking me.

I felt pretty disappointed and it drained all tension from the remaining fights in the adventure.

 

[FrogReaver]

Speaking only for myself, I absolutely like the risk of death.

We were playing PF2, I made a tactical mistake with my wizard (it happens) and the bandit leader was able to get my character dead to rights separated from the other characters. The bandit was strong enough that he could probably knock me down to zero on his turn, and the group was low on healing.

So...on the bandit’s turn he naturally wasted a turn moving towards the rogue that was further away and not an immediate threat without attacking me.

I felt pretty disappointed and it drained all tension from the remaining fights in the adventure.

This also demonstrates the issue with death as an illusion. There are too many situations where it’s easy to see through the illusion.

 

[Maxperson]

Speaking only for myself, I absolutely like the risk of death.

We were playing PF2, I made a tactical mistake with my wizard (it happens) and the bandit leader was able to get my character dead to rights separated from the other characters. The bandit was strong enough that he could probably knock me down to zero on his turn, and the group was low on healing.

So...on the bandit’s turn he naturally wasted a turn moving towards the rogue that was further away and not an immediate threat without attacking me.

I felt pretty disappointed and it drained all tension from the remaining fights in the adventure.

There really isn't enough for me to go on here, but as you were there and had the extra information I'm missing, your interpretation rules.

Just to offer up a DM's perspective on possibilities, I look at the whole fight when determining what my intelligent NPCs do. For example, if I were running a game and your wizard were there, I'd probably try to take him down. However, if your wizard hadn't yet cast a spell or was mostly ineffectual and the rogue was ripping people a new one with his sneak attack, I might indeed have the bandit leader ignore you and try to take out the biggest threat that the leader can assess, moving past you to the rogue. Sometimes there are good reasons for ignoring the closest, softest target.

 

[FrogReaver]

There really isn't enough for me to go on here, but as you were there and had the extra information I'm missing, your interpretation rules.

Just to offer up a DM's perspective on possibilities, I look at the whole fight when determining what my intelligent NPCs do. For example, if I were running a game and your wizard were there, I'd probably try to take him down. However, if your wizard hadn't yet cast a spell or was mostly ineffectual and the rogue was ripping people a new one with his sneak attack, I might indeed have the bandit leader ignore you and try to take out the biggest threat that the leader can assess, moving past you to the rogue. Sometimes there are good reasons for ignoring the closest, softest target.

I’ve admittedly not played PF2 but aren’t wizards in it deemed a bit weak in combat compared to the more martial classes?

And also if the wizard could be taken down in 1 turn it’s almost as likely the rogue could be as well?

 

[Maxperson]

I’ve admittedly not played PF2 but aren’t wizards in it deemed a bit weak in combat compared to the more martial classes?

I have no clue. I've not played either pathfinder. I'm just talking as a general rule, smart NPCs of mine will assess and try to remove the biggest threat. A bandit leader will generally not have in depth knowledge of the party, so will have to go on what they see to assess threats.

And also if the wizard could be taken down in 1 turn it’s almost as likely the rogue could be as well?

Maybe. From an NPC perspective, power levels can vary among people. For all the bandit leader knows, the wizard is a rank beginner and the rogue is very skilled(level 1 and say level 7). He's not going to be aware that it's a group of PCs of all the same level(or thereabouts). I try very hard to be fair and use only what knowledge the bandit leader would have to make his decisions.

 

[FrogReaver]

I have no clue. I've not played either pathfinder. I'm just talking as a general rule, smart NPCs of mine will assess and try to remove the biggest threat. A bandit leader will generally not have in depth knowledge of the party, so will have to go on what they see to assess threats.

Maybe. From an NPC perspective, power levels can vary among people. For all the bandit leader knows, the wizard is a rank beginner and the rogue is very skilled(level 1 and say level 7). He's not going to be aware that it's a group of PCs of all the same level(or thereabouts). I try very hard to be fair and use only what knowledge the bandit leader would have to make his decisions.

Right I was just trying to say that if wizards are weaker at combat in general then that may be an inherent world feature that the bandit leader would be familiar with. Depends a lot on the different campaigns and settings and how the dm runs stuff.

 

[transmission89]

Some players won't. Some players will.

It's a matter of preference. Either you find that kind of meat grinder fun, or you don't.

Given that the funnel is essentially a one-shot, it's not really a good test either IMO. A player could be fine losing their faceless 0th level characters to the funnel, but still grow attached to whichever character survives. Although DCC probably isn't the system for them, in that case.

Players won't suddenly prefer a playstyle that produces lots of death just because they play DCC. Much like players don't suddenly prefer not dying because they play 3e. However, upon trying both games they might very well find that one aligns more with their preexisting preferences than the other.

I've seen plenty of deaths and even several TPKs result from fair and balanced encounters over the years. That's hardly a mere illusion of death. It's character death. It might not be as deadly as you might prefer, but I think there's a pretty wide range between that and the illusion of death.

Yes. Exactly. Players won’t suddenly prefer that play style. Which is literally the opening question that I answered. If they don’t want that, then it answers that question of if players today necessarily want that level of risk. I picked DCC as the system because that’s it’s raisin detre, a laser focus on that old school level of challenge and risk. If you do not like that, then the answer to the OP question must be no. I will happily bet that the vast majority of modern players would answer the same way.

 

[jmartkdr2]

I’ve admittedly not played PF2 but aren’t wizards in it deemed a bit weak in combat compared to the more martial classes?

And also if the wizard could be taken down in 1 turn it’s almost as likely the rogue could be as well?

PF2 spellcasters are a bit odd compared to similar games in that they're very effective against weaker enemies (often able to deal with several such foes in a single turn) but not very effective against stronger enemies. So if you're dealing with a mix over the course of a dungeon, the spellcasters actually shine more in the pre-boss battles, and can't do as much directly to the actual boss monster. It's an odd dynamic, and not everyone likes it.

They don't really get killed especially easy though. I read the comment above as "I was wounded already so he could have finished me off right there."

Also, damage cantrips aren't a joke in PF2 - they're close to or slightly better than 5e cantrips in terms of how powerful they are.