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

[FrogReaver]

And that’s my point in a nut shell. In following a scheme of fair and balanced encounters, it’s the “illusion of challenge” I referred to in my original post.

They want to feel challenged, but don’t want the risks of an uncontained confrontation. Which is fine, I’m not saying one play style is inheritantly better than the other.

You can test this, offer to run your group a DCC funnel with the randomly generated 0 level characters. Explain to them the concept.

Your group might be game for it. They might reject it.
If they reject it, I can predict the reasons are :
A) “we don’t want to play with that level of lethality”
B)”we don’t want to play with randomly rolled, potentially low stat characters”.

That there is the inherent challenge of the game. Make do with what you’ve got and become a hero through surviving. To control for system variance, you could also convert a funnel adventure for a 1st level 5e group. It would massively break the basic “agreed illusion of challenge” expectation. See how they react.

Instead, many players prefer the power fantasy. They want to make their character, have control over every aspect of their hero, bravely overcome the (balanced) odds and win the epic quest.

It’s fine, some want to play Diablo, swatting demons aside through their builds than play dark souls. And that’s cool, but that challenge isn’t on the same level.

I’m going to leave it at this. The wanting of fair and balanced encounters has nothing to do with wanting the threat of death to be an illusion. These 2 concepts are orthogonal. That’s why you keep getting pushback - because you are using words to describe a concept and motivation for it which are not actually present.

@Fanaelialae is absolutely right. What you are trying to talk about is the combat as war and combat as sport difference and it doesn’t appear you actually understand that difference.

 

[Fanaelialae]

And that’s my point in a nut shell. In following a scheme of fair and balanced encounters, it’s the “illusion of challenge” I referred to in my original post.

They want to feel challenged, but don’t want the risks of an uncontained confrontation. Which is fine, I’m not saying one play style is inheritantly better than the other.

You can test this, offer to run your group a DCC funnel with the randomly generated 0 level characters. Explain to them the concept.

Your group might be game for it. They might reject it.
If they reject it, I can predict the reasons are :
A) “we don’t want to play with that level of lethality”
B)”we don’t want to play with randomly rolled, potentially low stat characters”.

That there is the inherent challenge of the game. Make do with what you’ve got and become a hero through surviving. To control for system variance, you could also convert a funnel adventure for a 1st level 5e group. It would massively break the basic “agreed illusion of challenge” expectation. See how they react.

Instead, many players prefer the power fantasy. They want to make their character, have control over every aspect of their hero, bravely overcome the (balanced) odds and win the epic quest.

It’s fine, some want to play Diablo, swatting demons aside through their builds than play dark souls. And that’s cool, but that challenge isn’t on the same level.

Having fair and balanced encounters has no direct bearing on difficulty.

You could have a DM who frequently balances their encounters to take the players to the very edge of a TPK. If those players use poor tactics, or even have bad luck, then a TPK is basically a foregone conclusion. I sometimes do this and it is by no means easy, though it's something that's extremely difficult to do without encounter guidelines to help gauge the difficulty.

You could have a DM who regularly throws "unreasonable" encounters in the path of the players, but then rolls with whatever half-baked scheme they come up with to overcome the encounter, such that their success is basically guaranteed.

Of course, those are just two examples that are meant to illustrate that difficulty does not directly correlate to whether encounters are balanced or not. You can certainly have easy CaS style games and hard CaW style games as well.

While CaS players do expect fairness, that doesn't necessarily mean they expect the game to be easy. Throwing a CR 20 against a level 1 party is probably out, but what difficulty is "fair" will differ by player and group.

CaW players also expect fairness, just of a different variety. Putting a level 1 party against an unavoidable, inescapable CR 20 monster would also be considered unfair by most such players. Having a CR 20 monster in a level 1 adventure is potentially fair game, but only with the understanding that it can be overcome by asymmetrical means (which certainly includes simply avoiding the monster). Typically such a threat would either be telegraphed by the DM, or the players would be aware that they need to do their research (and have the capability of becoming aware of it).

Neither playstyle is necessarily easier or harder. One puts more emphasis on strategic play (where the outcome of an encounter is often decided before it even starts) while the other emphasizes tactical decisions made during the encounter. Either can be easier or harder depending on the group.

 

[Arilyn]

In 13th Age, all magic items have some degree of intelligence and will. One suggestion in the game is having a beloved item sacrifice itself to save the character. "I lost my favourite magic shield, but hey, I'm alive." Since magic items have their own quirks, it would depend on the item. For some, self-sacrifice is definitely not on the table!

 

[Lanefan]

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.

Cool idea, though IME it's extremely rare that the level-draining creature isn't killed or destroyed in the same encounter in which it did the level draining.

This could really have potential for Vampires, though, as (at least in 1e) when they're "destroyed" they go gaseous and return to their coffins. As Vampires drain two levels a shot in 1e, it'd be a cool twist to have the first level go immediately but hold the second level-loss in abeyance for a while; having it kick in if the Vampire isn't permanently destroyed (wooden stake, that sort of thing) within x-period of time.

I'll give this some thought. Thanks!

 

[Lanefan]

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.

If by this analogy you're referring to their 1999-era survey, keep in mind it's very flawed: they threw out the responses from the segment of the player base who would likely have preferred - in this analogy - rye.

However, let's take the analogy one step further. If it's hella easier to convert rye to whole wheat than it is to convert whole wheat to rye, why not just produce rye and print the conversion recipe on the bag?

 

[transmission89]

Having fair and balanced encounters has no direct bearing on difficulty.

You could have a DM who frequently balances their encounters to take the players to the very edge of a TPK. If those players use poor tactics, or even have bad luck, then a TPK is basically a foregone conclusion. I sometimes do this and it is by no means easy, though it's something that's extremely difficult to do without encounter guidelines to help gauge the difficulty.

You could have a DM who regularly throws "unreasonable" encounters in the path of the players, but then rolls with whatever half-baked scheme they come up with to overcome the encounter, such that their success is basically guaranteed.

Of course, those are just two examples that are meant to illustrate that difficulty does not directly correlate to whether encounters are balanced or not. You can certainly have easy CaS style games and hard CaW style games as well.

While CaS players do expect fairness, that doesn't necessarily mean they expect the game to be easy. Throwing a CR 20 against a level 1 party is probably out, but what difficulty is "fair" will differ by player and group.

CaW players also expect fairness, just of a different variety. Putting a level 1 party against an unavoidable, inescapable CR 20 monster would also be considered unfair by most such players. Having a CR 20 monster in a level 1 adventure is potentially fair game, but only with the understanding that it can be overcome by asymmetrical means (which certainly includes simply avoiding the monster). Typically such a threat would either be telegraphed by the DM, or the players would be aware that they need to do their research (and have the capability of becoming aware of it).

Neither playstyle is necessarily easier or harder. One puts more emphasis on strategic play (where the outcome of an encounter is often decided before it even starts) while the other emphasizes tactical decisions made during the encounter. Either can be easier or harder depending on the group.

I’m going to leave it at this. The wanting of fair and balanced encounters has nothing to do with wanting the threat of death to be an illusion. These 2 concepts are orthogonal. That’s why you keep getting pushback - because you are using words to describe a concept and motivation for it which are not actually present.

@Fanaelialae is absolutely right. What you are trying to talk about is the combat as war and combat as sport difference and it doesn’t appear you actually understand that difference.

Reference to the original post :

”
Alot of the time, D&D veterans may have criticisms that the game is a bit too easy. Its certainly easier than the older editions and player death isn't nearly as frequent, but the risk is there.

The question is: Do players actually want this risk?”

Fair and balanced encounters (and expectations of) and the threat of death are absolutely tied together. Combat as sport vs war are absolutely tied to this. This is making my point for me, the mindset difference I referred to. If it is sport, the challenge is mitigated with respect to the question posed by the OP.

If the central conceit of the game is ”heroes go into a perilous dungeon and brave the hazards therein for rewards“ (for that is what the basic framework of the rules provide for despite all the marvellous ways generations of players have pulled at these to create campaigns with scope behind this) and you are not prepared for the idea that your character may die an ignominious death from a rogue green slime, falling down a spiked pit, or ambushed by 20 kobolds after triggering an alarm, you must answer no to the original question.

If you subscribe to the view that death or challenge should be in service to (or derived) from the story, that challenge is artificial. You have an almost literal plot armour as death is only threatened when called for.
Of course, play what works for you, but I suspect many would recoil at the idea I expressed above which again, referring back to my post and the op shows that no, most players don’t want this risk, they want the illusion of it to satisfy their power fantasy. Balanced encounters are in service to this.

 

[jasper]

D&D gamers range from IT is Game get me 5 to roll up Fred JR to This my Story you can't make me die. As long as the table gets on the same frequency, the game will be enjoyable. Neither end of the spectrum is BADWRONGFUN. Just not fun to some of you.
As an Adventure league dm Skully has 100 names on him after 292 sessions. 98 names if you don't count my two dead pcs which my gamers forced me to write on Skully. Two deaths from double damage. Two Tpks. A few random deaths. But I roll out in the open. And some monsters will go for the dying. Other local dms fudge, split attacks, and some times play nice monsters.

 

[Fanaelialae]

If by this analogy you're referring to their 1999-era survey, keep in mind it's very flawed: they threw out the responses from the segment of the player base who would likely have preferred - in this analogy - rye.

However, let's take the analogy one step further. If it's hella easier to convert rye to whole wheat than it is to convert whole wheat to rye, why not just produce rye and print the conversion recipe on the bag?

No, I was referring to the market research they did for 5e.

Even if it were easier to convert rye to wheat, it would still be an arguably bad business move, IMO, if their market research says most people prefer wheat. However, I would seriously question whether that is even the case. It would be quite easy for me to add in mechanics like level drain and single-roll instant death to 5e. You could make combats faster and more lethal by halving the hp of monsters and doubling their damage.

Whether a group would actually want to play a game with those modifications would depend heavily on the group. Just my opinion, but I don't think 5e would be enjoying it's currently popularity if the default setting were more old school. They play experience out of the box is likely to significantly influence whether a group of newbies join the hobby or decide it isn't for them.

 

[Fanaelialae]

Reference to the original post :

”
Alot of the time, D&D veterans may have criticisms that the game is a bit too easy. Its certainly easier than the older editions and player death isn't nearly as frequent, but the risk is there.

The question is: Do players actually want this risk?”

Fair and balanced encounters (and expectations of) and the threat of death are absolutely tied together. Combat as sport vs war are absolutely tied to this. This is making my point for me, the mindset difference I referred to. If it is sport, the challenge is mitigated with respect to the question posed by the OP.

If the central conceit of the game is ”heroes go into a perilous dungeon and brave the hazards therein for rewards“ (for that is what the basic framework of the rules provide for despite all the marvellous ways generations of players have pulled at these to create campaigns with scope behind this) and you are not prepared for the idea that your character may die an ignominious death from a rogue green slime, falling down a spiked pit, or ambushed by 20 kobolds after triggering an alarm, you must answer no to the original question.

If you subscribe to the view that death or challenge should be in service to (or derived) from the story, that challenge is artificial. You have an almost literal plot armour as death is only threatened when called for.
Of course, play what works for you, but I suspect many would recoil at the idea I expressed above which again, referring back to my post and the op shows that no, most players don’t want this risk, they want the illusion of it to satisfy their power fantasy. Balanced encounters are in service to this.

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.

 

[tetrasodium]

Reference to the original post :

”
Alot of the time, D&D veterans may have criticisms that the game is a bit too easy. Its certainly easier than the older editions and player death isn't nearly as frequent, but the risk is there.

The question is: Do players actually want this risk?”

Fair and balanced encounters (and expectations of) and the threat of death are absolutely tied together. Combat as sport vs war are absolutely tied to this. This is making my point for me, the mindset difference I referred to. If it is sport, the challenge is mitigated with respect to the question posed by the OP.

If the central conceit of the game is ”heroes go into a perilous dungeon and brave the hazards therein for rewards“ (for that is what the basic framework of the rules provide for despite all the marvellous ways generations of players have pulled at these to create campaigns with scope behind this) and you are not prepared for the idea that your character may die an ignominious death from a rogue green slime, falling down a spiked pit, or ambushed by 20 kobolds after triggering an alarm, you must answer no to the original question.

If you subscribe to the view that death or challenge should be in service to (or derived) from the story, that challenge is artificial. You have an almost literal plot armour as death is only threatened when called for.
Of course, play what works for you, but I suspect many would recoil at the idea I expressed above which again, referring back to my post and the op shows that no, most players don’t want this risk, they want the illusion of it to satisfy their power fantasy. Balanced encounters are in service to this.

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

 

[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).