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

[FrogReaver]

“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...

I don't know if many would call a game where the players all committed suicide by dragon every chance they got 'lethal' even if it did have alot of PC deaths. So I think there is a difference between lethal and PC death in general - even though they are often correlated.

 

[FrogReaver]

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.

The game has always been to some degree about ensuring a kind of fairness in adventure design. I mean no one ever throws an ancient dragon at level 1 PC's unless they intend for escape to be an option. People not wanting to be forced to fight ancient red dragons at level 1 is the same mindset that others have toward fighting other 'unfair' fights. The same principles are in play. The only question is where they draw the line for 'unfair'.

Not wanting 'unfair' encounters/adventures - whatever that means to the player - isn't the same as not wanting a risk of death. Even encounters the player deems as fair can lead to death afterall.

 

[transmission89]

The game has always been to some degree about ensuring a kind of fairness in adventure design. I mean no one ever throws an ancient dragon at level 1 PC's unless they intend for escape to be an option. People not wanting to be forced to fight ancient red dragons at level 1 is the same mindset that others have toward fighting other 'unfair' fights. The same principles are in play. The only question is where they draw the line for 'unfair'.

Not wanting 'unfair' encounters/adventures - whatever that means to the player - isn't the same as not wanting a risk of death. Even encounters the player deems as fair can lead to death afterall.

So you’re right here on the last point.
To be clear, I’m not saying later editions are impossible to be lethal with, nor are there tool unavailable to do it.

I’m saying the desire is not there (for the vast majority), going back to that original question (and this is regardless of tools or rules framework used). The reason I brought those up are because they’ve fed into this expectation, this change of mindset.

We can see this across the mass market with whole cottage industries of art commissions and the like with the focus on the character.

This hyper focus on the character as an individual, and the party would not or indeed could not exist with this risk based lethal approach (why would you pay to commission art if the character was unlikely to survive?)

certainly, modern editions provide better structure for those that don’t want this risk than the older versions. But again, that’s the play style difference (there were “modern approach players” battling with the old rule sets before moving on) that is dominant now. Not wanting that challenge or risk. Which is why I’d stand by my answer.

And it’s no bad thing, players will play what they want, but my assertion remains, they want the power fantasy, the illusion of challenge (or artificial challenge if that expresses it better), than the experience the older rules provided a framework for.

 

[Fanaelialae]

So you’re right here on the last point.
To be clear, I’m not saying later editions are impossible to be lethal with, nor are there tool unavailable to do it.

I’m saying the desire is not there (for the vast majority), going back to that original question (and this is regardless of tools or rules framework used). The reason I brought those up are because they’ve fed into this expectation, this change of mindset.

We can see this across the mass market with whole cottage industries of art commissions and the like with the focus on the character.

This hyper focus on the character as an individual, and the party would not or indeed could not exist with this risk based lethal approach (why would you pay to commission art if the character was unlikely to survive?)

certainly, modern editions provide better structure for those that don’t want this risk than the older versions. But again, that’s the play style difference (there were “modern approach players” battling with the old rule sets before moving on) that is dominant now. Not wanting that challenge or risk. Which is why I’d stand by my answer.

And it’s no bad thing, players will play what they want, but my assertion remains, they want the power fantasy, the illusion of challenge (or artificial challenge if that expresses it better), than the experience the older rules provided a framework for.

I disagree that there's been a widespread change in mindset. Even back in the day there were players who would spend hours picking out and hand painting the mini for their character. That's certainly more investment, IMO, than paying someone a few bucks for an art commission.

Art commissions are more popular nowadays due to easy access via the internet. A highly competitive market had brought the price down. Back in the day, unless you knew a friend who would do it, good luck finding anyone willing to do so at an affordable price. What would you do, put an add out in the paper?

Similarly, I believe there was a demand for more balanced games pre-3e, but the supply wasn't there, so it went unanswered. Once the supply was met (the release of 3e), people wanted to play the way the way they had always wanted to play, but that this new game finally supported. That's not a change of mindset. It's supply meeting demand.

 

[Oofta]

I disagree that there's been a widespread change in mindset. Even back in the day there were players who would spend hours picking out and hand painting the mini for their character. That's certainly more investment, IMO, than paying someone a few bucks for an art commission.

Art commissions are more popular nowadays due to easy access via the internet. A highly competitive market had brought the price down. Back in the day, unless you knew a friend who would do it, good luck finding anyone willing to do so at an affordable price. What would you do, put an add out in the paper?

Similarly, I believe there was a demand for more balanced games pre-3e, but the supply wasn't there, so it went unanswered. Once the supply was met (the release of 3e), people wanted to play the way the way they had always wanted to play, but that this new game finally supported. That's not a change of mindset. It's supply meeting demand.

My rate of PC deaths hasn't really changed across editions. In pre 3 games, we just had house rules and wands of healing. I know that may not have been "standard" (was there a standard?) style of game. If you want a grindhouse style game you can still do it, it just takes a bit of effort and is no longer assumed to be the default.

 

[Fanaelialae]

My rate of PC deaths hasn't really changed across editions. In pre 3 games, we just had house rules and wands of healing. I know that may not have been "standard" (was there a standard?) style of game. If you want a grindhouse style game you can still do it, it just takes a bit of effort and is no longer assumed to be the default.

Absolutely. I've played in 3e/4e/5e games that were definitely deadlier than some of the Basic/2e games I played. In fact, the deadliest campaign I ever played was almost certainly that 3.5e campaign I mentioned earlier in the thread (which averaged around a death per session over roughly 26 sessions).

 

[tetrasodium]

I don't know if many would call a game where the players all committed suicide by dragon every chance they got 'lethal' even if it did have alot of PC deaths. So I think there is a difference between lethal and PC death in general - even though they are often correlated.

Higher lethality allows a greater magic item budget too, those reduce the risk in ways often obvious to the items themselves. If the GM needs to build an extensive set of house rules to change mechanics that cause pcs to be overly durable and then pile on a bunch of one off rulings to scout for all of the edge case one off problems and gaps created it becomes more difficult to tune the right balance between lethality and insulated.

 

[Maxperson]

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."

I don't agree with that. We are all different and know or realize different things. Often as the DM I know that there is a situation that even if the players haven't considered it, the PCs either will or might consider. If they will, they I will just tell the players what the PC knows/realizes. If it's a might, then the outcome is in doubt and a roll is needed. I don't need to have the players declare an action. I just need to know enough about the PCs to know whether something should require a roll or not.

As an example, Bob's PC is a dwarf and his player created a background where the PC is a member of a mining family and spent his life before adventuring tunneling and mining for iron. If Bob didn't ask me about the tunnel, I'd realize that Bob's PC would be looking around and would recognize the unstable nature of the tunnel and would just tell him. If Bob's PC was a human engineer, but didn't specifically tunnel, I'd call for a roll and if successful, I'd tell Bob about the tunnel.

 

[transmission89]

I disagree that there's been a widespread change in mindset. Even back in the day there were players who would spend hours picking out and hand painting the mini for their character. That's certainly more investment, IMO, than paying someone a few bucks for an art commission.

Art commissions are more popular nowadays due to easy access via the internet. A highly competitive market had brought the price down. Back in the day, unless you knew a friend who would do it, good luck finding anyone willing to do so at an affordable price. What would you do, put an add out in the paper?

Similarly, I believe there was a demand for more balanced games pre-3e, but the supply wasn't there, so it went unanswered. Once the supply was met (the release of 3e), people wanted to play the way the way they had always wanted to play, but that this new game finally supported. That's not a change of mindset. It's supply meeting demand.

Again, feel free to put it to the test with a DCC funnel adventure

 

[FrogReaver]

Again, feel free to put it to the test with a DCC funnel adventure

I’ve no idea what that is?