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

[doctorbadwolf]

The monsters die regardless. But if they focus on downed PCs, at least it gets the players sweating a little.

Fighting monsters played by a ruthless DM is exhillerating. My players were terrified of fighting a dragon in my campaign, because they knew that if they were forced to flee, it would just fly after them. It would set fire to their ship, and any town they tried to flee to. But that really adds some stakes to a fight.

IME there is nothing fun about that, but different strokes

 

[Bedrockgames]

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?

This boils down to the player. The older editions were more lethal for sure, but there were always players who disliked dying (and complained about it). But I think there were two basic camps. I always felt having death on the table, including random death from stupid things, made the game more exciting and played into the random aspect of dice rolls sometimes determining outcomes. For me it definitely makes the game more enjoyable. For others it takes away from the game.

 

[Mistwell]

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?

Well this is an interesting discussion. Usually the conversation is about character death, not player death. But you want to talk about risking death to the player. Edgy!

So, what's your weapon of choice?

 

[Asisreo]

Well this is an interesting discussion. Usually the conversation is about character death, not player death. But you want to talk about risking death to the player. Edgy!

So, what's your weapon of choice?

Instant Old Age or Disease. Let them feel the pain of being old as punishment for defying the greatest Elder God.

 

[Lanefan]

I don't think this really addresses the point. I effectively asked why folks have games structured so that the only consequence the players care about is death.

Because the other two long-term consequences that players really care about IME - those being 1) permanent level drain and 2) item meltdowns due to AoE damage - are no longer available by RAW.

Your answer amounts to, "because that's the only lasting mechanical consequence provided in the official rules"? The rules do not give us any other structure, so this is the one we use?

A fair point for new GMs. But on a site full of homebrewers, rules-hackers, and adventure creators, who apply lots of imaginative stuff that isn't in the published rules, it seems... an inadequate reason. Folks can come up with alternate classes, and whole new magic systems, but... they couldn't possibly use consequences other than death, because there are no rules for it?

Oh these things can be kitbashed in alright, and easily; but only over howls of protest from the player base and at great risk of coming across as a rat-bastard DM.

Far easier for all had these other long-term bad consequences been left in as default RAW with options presented to take them out if desired for one's own table. That way, the DM who runs it RAW is just running the game, while the DM who exercises the removal option(s) comes across as a nice guy - or a softie, one or the other.

 

[Oofta]

Because the other two long-term consequences that players really care about IME - those being 1) permanent level drain and 2) item meltdowns due to AoE damage - are no longer available by RAW.

Oh these things can be kitbashed in alright, and easily; but only over howls of protest from the player base and at great risk of coming across as a rat-bastard DM.

Far easier for all had these other long-term bad consequences been left in as default RAW with options presented to take them out if desired for one's own table. That way, the DM who runs it RAW is just running the game, while the DM who exercises the removal option(s) comes across as a nice guy - or a softie, one or the other.

Just goes to show that different people play for different reasons. My players care about all sorts of negative story consequences, not just mechanical penalties.

Which I think is a strength of D&D in it's ability to appeal to different styles.

 

[Lanefan]

Just goes to show that different people play for different reasons. My players care about all sorts of negative story consequences, not just mechanical penalties.

Thing is, in the games I run/play in each player has numerous characters in the setting; and a story consequence that matters deeply to one character might not affect another of the same player's characters in the slightest. As such, the players (including me) tend to distance ourselves a bit from story consequences unless we're playing a characterat the time who is directly affected.

ALL characters, however, are affected by big-time mechanical consequences such as level loss, item loss and death; which means the player will also be affected no matter what.

 

[MGibster]

I don't think this really addresses the point. I effectively asked why folks have games structured so that the only consequence the players care about is death.

Remember when rust monsters were one of the scariest creatures you could encounter? If there's one thing D&D players hate more than having their character die it's losing magic items or levels and neither one of those happens these days.

A fair point for new GMs. But on a site full of homebrewers, rules-hackers, and adventure creators, who apply lots of imaginative stuff that isn't in the published rules, it seems... an inadequate reason. Folks can come up with alternate classes, and whole new magic systems, but... they couldn't possibly use consequences other than death, because there are no rules for it?

I don't think death has to be the only consequence but when we're talking about people throwing balls of fire or trying to hit one another with sharpened pieces of metal then the possibility should always be on the table.

 

[Imaculata]

IME there is nothing fun about that, but different strokes

How exciting is a battle if you know you can't lose?

 

[Ruin Explorer]

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?

My recent experience suggests players like PCs dying, including their PCs, but they don't like random or stupid deaths at all, unless they're playing a game where that is specifically a central conceit.

Specifically, I've more recently played some games where your PC can only die if you agree that they can die (as well as having mechanically "lost" etc.), otherwise they suffer other consequences.

In these games I've seen more deaths than D&D etc where people work tirelessly to avoid them because 95% of D&D deaths are dumb and boring. This strongly suggests to me that quite a few players want death to be on the menu, but never to be handed out randomly.