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

[transmission89]

I’m glad you thought about it.

From my perspective it seems a lot more like you are trying to squeeze every fact into your already existing views. IMO. Your view is already decided that people don’t like old school play because they don’t like death. And I don’t say this to down you because I dig in to my views as well until thoroughly discredited. So I want to ask what would it take to change your mind?

Except that’s the wrong way round. My views have been informed by the “facts” ( more strictly true to say observations and subjective experiences) as I’m seeing little objective as a counter point or even for my point. It’s pretty much all subjective.

For example, we can say objectively that OSR games offer more risk (by the definition of the word) to the pc than 5e (all btb). This isn’t to discredit 5e, edition bash or bad wrong fun players. It is just to state, that what is printed, 5e offers PCs more utility, opportunities to come back from 0hp,no level drain, no save or die etc).

That’s pretty much it objectively. Everything else is subjective. I’m a big forum/Reddit/discord lurker. I guess I “passively engage” with the community voraciously from that point of view. Time and time again I see patterns of similar refrain that suggest where the focus and priorities lie.

For example, What is interesting, is repeatedly, one of the frequently mentioned reasons from make the switch from 5e to osr (or even staying for more than a dabble) is mention of a desire for stakes (or risk) which suggests a need for some that is not being met.

Now of course, in terms of applicable data for a dissertation level conclusion, of all this falls far short. For me, this suffices for a forum level conclusion.

For me to change my mind, I’d want to see a shift in the discourse of the wider online community that supported the notion that the idea of risk was being seriously entertained. Less accusations of “edgy DMs” or “adversarial DMing” which is used in such a way that betrays a misunderstanding of the older referee style.

and just for clarity, I do also enjoy modern style games as well. But the expectations and mind set are different in this setting

An in depth post for you to amend my glib one earlier.

 

[Oofta]

Except that’s the wrong way round. My views have been informed by the “facts” ( more strictly true to say observations and subjective experiences) as I’m seeing little objective as a counter point or even for my point. It’s pretty much all subjective.

For example, we can say objectively that OSR games offer more risk (by the definition of the word) to the pc than 5e (all btb). This isn’t to discredit 5e, edition bash or bad wrong fun players. It is just to state, that what is printed, 5e offers PCs more utility, opportunities to come back from 0hp,no level drain, no save or die etc).

That’s pretty much it objectively. Everything else is subjective. I’m a big forum/Reddit/discord lurker. I guess I “passively engage” with the community voraciously from that point of view. Time and time again I see patterns of similar refrain that suggest where the focus and priorities lie.

For example, What is interesting, is repeatedly, one of the frequently mentioned reasons from make the switch from 5e to osr (or even staying for more than a dabble) is mention of a desire for stakes (or risk) which suggests a need for some that is not being met.

Now of course, in terms of applicable data for a dissertation level conclusion, of all this falls far short. For me, this suffices for a forum level conclusion.

For me to change my mind, I’d want to see a shift in the discourse of the wider online community that supported the notion that the idea of risk was being seriously entertained. Less accusations of “edgy DMs” or “adversarial DMing” which is used in such a way that betrays a misunderstanding of the older referred style.

and just for clarity, I do also enjoy modern style games as well. But the expectations and mind set are different in this setting

An in depth post for you to amend my glib one earlier.

I would say that the big difference in lethality with OD&D is that death was more random. It was more designed to have "gotcha" deaths with everything from floors that ate you to death pits. Personally? Back in ye olden days I was quite hesitant to kill off PCs and we didn't do run things like Tomb of Annihilation which had the DM vs player vibe. Nowadays? I ask.

Is it hard to permanently kill off high level PCs? Yes. It always has been unless you TPK. I don't think it's an "objective fact" that one edition was more deadly, in older editions it was just more "make a save or you die" and similar.

 

[Oofta]

I've seen plenty of players over the years at tables I've gamed at who, while not necessarily thrilled that their character died, were fine with it.

Just because someone is unhappy when their character dies, doesn't mean that they don't want a real possibility of it happening. People can grow attached to characters, and some grief is perfectly natural. Of course, it's on them to express that grief in a mature manner, but that's more a matter of personal maturity than anything to do with gaming preferences.

To put it another way, I'm quite unhappy every year when I have to do my taxes. That doesn't mean I think taxes should be abolished, or that I should be exempted from being taxed. Would you claim that I only want the illusion of paying taxes?

I can't speak for others, but I'm fine with my PC dying. If I wasn't I wouldn't ever attempt to play an elf because every single elf I've ever played in any edition has died quite early on in their career (my last 5E attempt almost made it to the end of his first session).

On the other hand, in some games you're lucky if you live and I don't want to go to that extreme either. What I really dislike is when your PC has no indication of the risk level they're taking; when not tapping every square inch of a hallway with that 10 foot pole could mean instant death as the floor ate you. Or the monsters that could cast a spell and if they were more than 3 levels (?) higher than you, you were stunned until dead with no save or options.

Some people obviously like the random, pointless death. I'm just not one of them.

 

[FrogReaver]

Except that’s the wrong way round. My views have been informed by the “facts” ( more strictly true to say observations and subjective experiences) as I’m seeing little objective as a counter point or even for my point. It’s pretty much all subjective.

So one thing I have been trying to do is to point out that there are other potential explanations for those 'observations and subjective experiences' of yours. I think a pretty good case has been made for how those observations and experiences can be explained via other explanations than your preferred. And I get that's not enough to convince you to change positions, but it seems our alternate explanations are just being shrugged off instead of being deemed as possibilities.

Is your view possible? In a purely theoretical sense I think so - but I think there's a number of observations where it really fails at being a good explanation. As a recent example: the notion that players upset at their PC's death for whatever reason would prefer if there was no PC death in the game. I find that your view treats people as far to simplistic because I don't find negative emotions about something means we necessarily want the world structured in such a way that whatever we are upset about cannot happen.

For example, we can say objectively that OSR games offer more risk (by the definition of the word) to the pc than 5e (all btb). This isn’t to discredit 5e, edition bash or bad wrong fun players. It is just to state, that what is printed, 5e offers PCs more utility, opportunities to come back from 0hp,no level drain, no save or die etc).

Not everyone will agree with that, but I certainly do. I think most will agree.

That’s pretty much it objectively. Everything else is subjective. I’m a big forum/Reddit/discord lurker. I guess I “passively engage” with the community voraciously from that point of view. Time and time again I see patterns of similar refrain that suggest where the focus and priorities lie.

Sure. I think we all see some of that. But there's alot of people with alot of different gaming styles and in some of their styles I'm sure that behavior would be considered 'bad'. Getting some education that there are other styles out there with different priorities where such things aren't 'bad' is key. But education IMO is hard.

For example, What is interesting, is repeatedly, one of the frequently mentioned reasons from make the switch from 5e to osr (or even staying for more than a dabble) is mention of a desire for stakes (or risk) which suggests a need for some that is not being met.

I don't know about OSR, but I really like Stars without Number (even more than 5e) and it has simple characters with scaling to hit bonuses and such. Things I would consider fairly old school ways of designing characters and level advancement. It's also a much more deadly game because hp isn't bloated and weapons do a substantial amount of your hp in damage.

Now of course, in terms of applicable data for a dissertation level conclusion, of all this falls far short. For me, this suffices for a forum level conclusion.

For me to change my mind, I’d want to see a shift in the discourse of the wider online community that supported the notion that the idea of risk was being seriously entertained. Less accusations of “edgy DMs” or “adversarial DMing” which is used in such a way that betrays a misunderstanding of the older referred style.

and just for clarity, I do also enjoy modern style games as well. But the expectations and mind set are different in this setting

An in depth post for you to amend my glib one earlier.

So there's basically nothing we can do to convince you because none of us have control over what you want to see before you change your mind. And since we are mostly to the point of just repeating the same arguments in slightly different ways is there really a point to continue this?

 

[transmission89]

I would say that the big difference in lethality with OD&D is that death was more random. It was more designed to have "gotcha" deaths with everything from floors that ate you to death pits. Personally? Back in ye olden days I was quite hesitant to kill off PCs and we didn't do run things like Tomb of Annihilation which had the DM vs player vibe. Nowadays? I ask.

Is it hard to permanently kill off high level PCs? Yes. It always has been unless you TPK. I don't think it's an "objective fact" that one edition was more deadly, in older editions it was just more "make a save or you die" and similar.

Except it is there in black and white in the respective rule books. That element is not even debatable. Of course play style includes preferences and decisions, which then introduces subjectivity.

And I take your point that death is more arbitrary. It certainly is, though again, steps can be taken to mitigate this. You’ve also demonstrated my point around discourse by referring to it as “player vs DM”. I have no doubt there were a myriad of bad DMs that played like that. But again, btb, it’s hammered home over and over that the referee is impartial.

 

[transmission89]

So one thing I have been trying to do is to point out that there are other potential explanations for those 'observations and subjective experiences' of yours. I think a pretty good case has been made for how those observations and experiences can be explained via other explanations than your preferred. And I get that's not enough to convince you to change positions, but it seems our alternate explanations are just being shrugged off instead of being deemed as possibilities.

Is your view possible? In a purely theoretical sense I think so - but I think there's a number of observations where it really fails at being a good explanation. As a recent example: the notion that players upset at their PC's death for whatever reason would prefer if there was no PC death in the game. I find that your view treats people as far to simplistic because I don't find negative emotions about something means we necessarily want the world structured in such a way that whatever we are upset about cannot happen.


Not everyone will agree with that, but I certainly do. I think most will agree.


Sure. I think we all see some of that. But there's alot of people with alot of different gaming styles and in some of their styles I'm sure that behavior would be considered 'bad'. Getting some education that there are other styles out there with different priorities where such things aren't 'bad' is key. But education IMO is hard.


I don't know about OSR, but I really like Stars without Number (even more than 5e) and it has simple characters with scaling to hit bonuses and such. Things I would consider fairly old school ways of designing characters and level advancement. It's also a much more deadly game because hp isn't bloated and weapons do a substantial amount of your hp in damage.


So there's basically nothing we can do to convince you because none of us have control over what you want to see before you change your mind. And since we are mostly to the point of just repeating the same arguments in slightly different ways is there really a point to continue this?

Indeed, I agree with everything you say, from your talk, reason and discussion, I have no doubt that were we at the same table, I should enjoy your company and game very much.

Also, no you couldn’t change my mind nor could I change yours in a forum. Indeed, it would be an exercise in futility and this isn’t something I really expected to continue on this level. I merely offered my opinion to the OP question.

This isn’t a slight on you, nor an attempt to be provocative. It’s just forums are a poor medium for detailed, in depth discourse beyond something slightly more than a hot take. The medium of text (without a post that runs pages and pages) combined with a delayed response time too easily leads to mid readings and offence taken when none is intended.

But make no mistake, I’m not at all close minded. I’d be totally down for an in-depth discussion around a pint. My points were purposefully reductive for a quick pitch in to an interesting question posed and for brevity’s sake.

 

[FrogReaver]

One thing that this discussion has gotten me thinking about is how old school games often resorted to ‘easy healing’ via potions and wands of cure light wounds. For a good portion of games this made them not nearly as deadly as the mechanics would otherwise suggest. They also resorted in 10ft pole dungeon crawling as the 10ft pole often was often enough to evade deadly gotcha traps.

All these old school tricks and tactics really were about avoiding death and often served to make the game not much more deadly than its more modern iterations. Of course there were other things to really fear back in the day. Level drain, rust monsters, etc.

 

[tetrasodium]

One thing that this discussion has gotten me thinking about is how old school games often resorted to ‘easy healing’ via potions and wands of cure light wounds. For a good portion of games this made them not nearly as deadly as the mechanics would otherwise suggest. They also resorted in 10ft pole dungeon crawling as the 10ft pole often was often enough to evade deadly gotcha traps.

All these old school tricks and tactics really were about avoiding death and often served to make the game not much more deadly than its more modern iterations. Of course there were other things to really fear back in the day. Level drain, rust monsters, etc.

The important distinction between them is players like getting cool toys, 2e dmg had a nice section on that topic. Having those cool toys in the form of magical weapons & armor or healing items (potions/wands/etc) meant that the gm didn't need to structure their campaign & limit thekinds of stories they could tell around things like what works with doom clocks to apply strain. With the system already going above & beyond in filling the need it just wrecks things if players actually get them too

If the players took those resources & were especially good at working together to avoid needing them... good! great! If the players are doing that by being too cautious I as the gm could apply pressure by having monsters do things or even use some kind of doom clock as minor as the acid in shrine of tamochen if I don't want to use an actual doom clock.

 

[Maxperson]

One thing that this discussion has gotten me thinking about is how old school games often resorted to ‘easy healing’ via potions and wands of cure light wounds. For a good portion of games this made them not nearly as deadly as the mechanics would otherwise suggest. They also resorted in 10ft pole dungeon crawling as the 10ft pole often was often enough to evade deadly gotcha traps.

All these old school tricks and tactics really were about avoiding death and often served to make the game not much more deadly than its more modern iterations. Of course there were other things to really fear back in the day. Level drain, rust monsters, etc.

Poison killed. People say a lot about slow poison, but it was pretty much useless until you could cast neutralize poison, and then you hoped only one person missed the save. That alone made 1e and 2e far deadlier than any other editions.

 

[Lanefan]

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?

For me that'd depend on how you regain the level.

Restoration or other such magic will only ever give you back the level in the same class as before. Thus, if you went from Fighter-6 to Fighter-5 the spell will only put you back to Fighter-6. No other options.

But if you regain the level the hard way, i.e. by accumulation of xp, then it's as if you're getting it for the first time and you can make whatever choices you want.