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

[Maxperson]

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.

It doesn't at all answer the opening question, though. The opening question doesn't ask, "Do players want a meat grinder where you lose 20 character and end up with only one?" It simply asks if they are okay with the risk of death, which is a very different question. It's very easy to not want a meatgrinder but still be okay with the risk of death.

 

[transmission89]

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.

And indeed, all that is true. Of course, there are always, always variances, shades of grey ambiguities in a question like this. I don’t disagree with you here at all.

It’s why I’ve posed my answers as generalisms (because that’s all one can really do to such a general question without it bogging down to a morass of each individual group reporting in as to their specific style, even then not being truly representative).

I think the general market shows that actually no, it is not something that many generally want. And so that’s why I answer no (you can put the asterisk there if you like, t&cs apply, ymmv etc)

 

[FrogReaver]

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.

The issue is that You keep equivocating a certain playstyle with a fondness for no death or illusionary death. Your whole position is based on that equivocation and It’s simply untrue.

 

[transmission89]

It doesn't at all answer the opening question, though. The opening question doesn't ask, "Do players want a meat grinder where you lose 20 character and end up with only one?" It simply asks if they are okay with the risk of death, which is a very different question. It's very easy to not want a meatgrinder but still be okay with the risk of death.

With the opening post then expanding on it, discussing frequency (as it acknowledges death still happening in 5e).
I already mentioned above why I offered the funnel as the clearest example, but hell, we could expand that to a longer Dcc campaign, or a b/x campaign where the meat grinder effect is lessened but death still more frequent.

 

[Fanaelialae]

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.

That's a false conclusion. Preferring a game with a lower level of risk than DCC does not equate to only wanting illusory risk.

Let's say DCC rates a 10 on risk. Illusory risk is a 0 on this scale. If I prefer a 9, then suddenly I only want the illusion of challenge and risk? Clearly that isn't a logical conclusion. 9 =/= 0.

 

[transmission89]

The issue is that You keep equivocating a certain playstyle with a fondness for no death or illusionary death. Your whole position is based on that equivocation and It’s simply untrue.

Yet one play style is ok with the idea of these deaths and risk (or stakes) as par for the course of play and one is less frequent/ rare. So it is as it relates to that question.

 

[Maxperson]

And indeed, all that is true. Of course, there are always, always variances, shades of grey ambiguities in a question like this. I don’t disagree with you here at all.

It’s why I’ve posed my answers as generalisms (because that’s all one can really do to such a general question without it bogging down to a morass of each individual group reporting in as to their specific style, even then not being truly representative).

I think the general market shows that actually no, it is not something that many generally want. And so that’s why I answer no (you can put the asterisk there if you like, t&cs apply, ymmv etc)

I'm not sure that the general market doesn't want it. As has been pointed out, WotC did a survery for 5e and included the risk of death as a default part of the game. That would indicate that the market wants the risk to be there. They also made it very easy to avoid, so it also indicates that they want that risk to be minimal, but not non-existent. If the majority of the market wanted it to be gone, the death save and instant death mechanics would be optional rules, not defaults.

 

[transmission89]

That's a false conclusion. Preferring a game with a lower level of risk than DCC does not equate to only wanting illusory risk.

Let's say DCC rates a 10 on risk. Illusory risk is a 0 on this scale. If I prefer a 9, then suddenly I only want the illusion of challenge and risk? Clearly that isn't a logical conclusion. 9 =/= 0.

Except now we are just playing with semantics and introducing gradation. Indeed, as mentioned above, the answer will always be far more nuanced and muddled, but, for the purposes of a forum discussion, I’d say the answer is no. The question posed was essentially old school was like this, this doesn’t happen any more, are players cool with that.

I could’ve mentioned any OSR system, but again chose DCC for the reasons outlined.

 

[FrogReaver]

Yet one play style is ok with the idea of these deaths and risk (or stakes) as par for the course of play and one is less frequent/ rare. So it is as it relates to that question.

The question is not - ‘how much risk of death do you prefer?’ The question is - ‘do you prefer the risk of death?’

 

[Maxperson]

With the opening post then expanding on it, discussing frequency (as it acknowledges death still happening in 5e).
I already mentioned above why I offered the funnel as the clearest example, but hell, we could expand that to a longer Dcc campaign, or a b/x campaign where the meat grinder effect is lessened but death still more frequent.

The OP offered up the additional question once people said that the risk of death was wanted. He then expanded it to include types of risk.

The OP, though, only asked if the risk should be there, which the bloodbath question you pose doesn't answer. Nor does your bloodbath question answer the follow up question, "What sorts of risk are acceptable?" At best it answers that bloodbath is or is not acceptable, but goes no further. There are many grades of risk, as well as who gets to make the decision(player or DM) that your question doesn't even begin to touch.