D&D General "Hot Take": Fear is a bad motivator

[Maxperson]

I just want to cut down on the weeds in the conversation right now. All this useless hyperbole and outrage gets in the way of the actual arguments and causes people to rabbit off after arguments that shouldn't be taken seriously.

If you don't respond to the real issues, there is no conversation. You're not cutting back on weeds, you're posting weeds.

 

[Arilyn]

Did you want to respond to any other part of that post, or just the part that avoids any real issues being discussed?

I'll respond. The so called hard core skilled players can also reach 20th level too. Lucky characters can reach 20th level so I'm still a bit vague about your argument. In my experience, player characters, in no death games retire way before 20th level for a number of reasons. These types of games tend to focus on character arcs, and the arcs end around middling level. Usually, these characters want to retire at this point because as I mentioned, no death GMs are mean, and characters have been through the emotional wringer. And like everyone else, new characters become a lure.

Of course this is only my experiences. Anyone else, with no death games?

 

[Maxperson]

I'll respond. The so called hard core skilled players can also reach 20th level too. Lucky characters can reach 20th level so I'm still a bit vague about your argument.

I didn't mention "hardcore," "skilled," or "lucky." Since 3e came out it takes none of that to hit 20th. The last difficult D&D game where it took skill and luck to hit high levels was 2e. Hardcore can can apply at all levels. It's a state of mind, not levels.

In my experience, player characters, in no death games retire way before 20th level for a number of reasons. These types of games tend to focus on character arcs, and the arcs end around middling level. Usually, these characters want to retire at this point because as I mentioned, no death GMs are mean, and characters have been through the emotional wringer. And like everyone else, new characters become a lure.

If they want to retire before they succeed in undoing past failures, that's cool. They are opting into failure at that point, though.

Of course this is only my experiences. Anyone else, with no death games?

I've only been in one no death game. I quit once I realized it.

 

[Mort]

IF they make it there, yes. It's the "if" that makes all the difference. If you can't be guaranteed to get there and/or can die when you do, then true failure can happen. You might never succeed before death claims you. That potential makes all of the other setbacks possibly permanent ones, which alters the feel of the game considerably.

There are many more ways to fail than death. Frankly, in most games, death of a character is barely a spead-bump for a player.

If a PC dies than either:

1) the campaign has a mechanism for raising the character and he doesn't stay dead;
2) The player brings in a new character either at the same level as the old one or a a bit lower. I've only seen 1 or 2 campaigns where character death results in bringing in a 1st level character and I've never seen a "your character dies, you're out until the next campaign" Iron Man style group.

Failure of an objective (failure to save an NPC, failure to save a town, failure to prevent the party getting cursed) however, is often much more than a speed-bump and much harder to get around. The party can be saddled with the failure, and it can be truly campaign defining.

Frankly, a "no death" campaign often has MORE opportunity for a DM to torture his players (hopefully in a fun way) than one where characters can be easily killed.

 

[Maxperson]

There are many more ways to fail than death. Frankly, in most games, death of a character is barely a spead-bump for a player.

If a PC dies than either:

1) the campaign has a mechanism for raising the character and he doesn't stay dead;

That's why I've said in some of my responses, permanent death. It's also one of the reasons that raises are harder to come by in the games that I run.

2) The player brings in a new character either at the same level as the old one or a a bit lower. I've only seen 1 or 2 campaigns where character death results in bringing in a 1st level character and I've never seen a "your character dies, you're out until the next campaign" Iron Man style group.

The new character may or may not have the same goals, though. The one that died had a personal tie with the orphanage that burned to the ground killing everyone inside. He was the one who failed to get there in time to stop the bad guy. His nephew was among them.

If I'm going to try and overcome a past failure to the point where I will even push to 20th level and enlist gods to help, it's going to be something very personal to my PC. If my PC dies, my new one isn't going to have that personal connection and most likely isn't going to push to alter that state of failure. He's going to have his own goals and connections.

As a player I will have failed to bring those orphans back.

Failure of an objective (failure to save an NPC, failure to save a town, failure to prevent the party getting cursed) however, is often much more than a speed-bump and much harder to get around. The party can be saddled with the failure, and it can be truly campaign defining.

In a world where bringing people back from death is commonplace, how is failure to save an NPC or town more than a speedbump? The curse can take longer to remove, but I have yet to see one that not even a god can remove.

Frankly, a "no death" campaign often has MORE opportunity for a DM to torture his players (hopefully in a fun way) than one where characters can be easily killed.

So far I haven't seen anything suggested by a proponent of "no death" that doesn't also happen in death campaigns...........................except no death.

 

[Mort]

The new character may or may not have the same goals, though. The one that died had a personal tie with the orphanage that burned to the ground killing everyone inside. He was the one who failed to get there in time to stop the bad guy. His nephew was among them.

If I'm going to try and overcome a past failure to the point where I will even push to 20th level and enlist gods to help, it's going to be something very personal to my PC. If my PC dies, my new one isn't going to have that personal connection and most likely isn't going to push to alter that state of failure. He's going to have his own goals and connections.

As a player I will have failed to bring those orphans back.

I can certainly see that, but that's up to the player. Some players prefer to leave the past in the past (dead character) some players prefer to pick right up where the dead character left off - character with near identical goals.

In a world where bringing people back from death is commonplace, how is failure to save an NPC or town more than a speedbump? The curse can take longer to remove, but I have yet to see one that not even a god can remove.

Commonplace for PCs is not the same as commonplace for the world at large. Even if resurrection is known, it's likely unavailable for a simple village or even a well populated town. Even if it's available, the villains know that too.

If the villain wants to send a message - he burns down an entire town and burns all 300 residents down to ash. No raise dead, no resurrection and good luck to a)find a 17th plus level cleric and b) having him spend the next year resurrecting the town.

Godly intervention - sure, sounds like an awesome adventure.

So far I haven't seen anything suggested by a proponent of "no death" that doesn't also happen in death campaigns...........................except no death.

Well, the except no death IS the point. Some people like the character focus that provides, some don't and some don't see a big difference (which it may not be, depending on DM style). It's all about the fun at the table.

 

[Umbran]

If you don't respond to the real issues, there is no conversation. You're not cutting back on weeds, you're posting weeds.

Mod note:
I think we can say with some certainty, no recognized authority named you Arbiter of Real Issues. And hint: hyperbole acts to confuse issues, rather than clarify them.

So, stand down on the attempts to control the conversation, please and thank you.

 

[Umbran]

So far I haven't seen anything suggested by a proponent of "no death" that doesn't also happen in death campaigns...........................except no death.

There is nothing that happens in my kitchen that doesn't also happen in everyone else's kitchen. That doesn't mean that the food we produce is the same.

 

[Umbran]

I can't die? Great! I jump into the lava flow and swim across to the other side so I can get away from my pursuers; I'm +4 on swim checks. Tomorrow I'll walk out into the bay and just keep walking underwater, like the skeleton pirates in Black Pearl, till I get to Waterdeep - I can't drown and it's way cheaper than hiring a ship;

You will do no such thing.

Because, you see, the way this works is talked out in Session Zero. If you are playing, that means you agreed to separate your player knowledge from characer knowledge. Surely, you'd not violate your player agreement? If you did, you'd be promptly booted or otherwise managed.

You seem to be taking far too naive a pass at this, leaving out very basic things that are part of mature adults engaging in play. You would probably learn much more if you ask questions and listen more, and try to find loophole gotchas rather less. You are interested in learning, aren't you?

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Nope - I-as-player choose to have my character do this seemingly-suicidal action. However, I-as-player also expressly deny permission for my character's death.

Now where are we? Yeah, that's right - degenerate-land.

If you-as-player are intentionally violating the spirit of my campaign, it won't be hard to figure out, and I will tell you to stop. If you are going to be sufficiently petulant that you then return my gesture of respect and positivity with "haha, now I can break the game!", I'm probably going to ask you to leave. Like...are you GENUINELY saying that the ONLY thing that keeps most players behaving like rational adults who like each other is that the DM can permanently kill their characters at any time, for any arbitrary reason? Seriously?

I can and will tell someone who's being an ass that they're being an ass. It's exactly the same as telling someone, "Sorry dude, being a Paladin doesn't excuse you being a jerk, I don't care if it's 'what your character would do,' behave better, retire the character, or leave. It's your choice."

If your character continually acts suicidally stupidly, I won't get in the way of your obvious intent. Is that enough for you? Have I cleared the hurdles you invented because basic rationality and respect for your DM and fellow players are apparently not baseline assumptions of your gaming experience?

In a game with wishes and gods, eventually you are going to become powerful enough to do something about it.

Um...no, you won't. The stuff I talked about is definitely outside the scope of even a dozen wishes to fix (if you're even playing a game where wish exists and is repeatedly usable, which is not true of my game because wish is a stupid spell) and and the amount if resources required to cast that many wishes would take literal years of IRL time, which is almost certainly not going to happen for the vast majority of groups. And that's to solve just one major catastrophe.

Also...why on earth can you assume not only that you WILL befriend gods (who says the gods even make friends...?), but that once you have, you'll definitely always be able to get them to do whatever you want whenever you want with no requirements or expectations? Like...for real, do you actually play games where the gods are so easily controlled and never expect anything from their adherents or allies? How can even death be a problem when resurrection magic exists and you can pretty clearly earn divine favors? This would seem to apply to YOUR games nearly as much, man!

As an aside: There are also campaign-specific reasons why there's only one being in my setting that might be a god, or rather THE only god, but said being is distant and obscure, and emphatically does not intercede beyond the range of, say, the number of people you could fit into a small church/chapel. I recognize that this objection IS campaign specific, hence the aside, but...again, it shows how you're making HUGE SWEEPING assumptions about what powers are available for infinite reuse by the players.

I don't need to have the power of a god, when eventually I'm going to be powerful enough that one will listen and/or owe me a favor for saving their temple or even their religion during some adventure when I'm 20th level.

So...why are you allowed to assume that (a) you WILL get the gratitude of a deity, it's just a matter of time, (b) the deity in question WILL have the interest, power, and compatible moral beliefs to do whatever you want, AND (c) there could never ever be additional costs or requirements that you as a player might not be willing to fulfill?

I am genuinely flabbergasted, Max. The amount of power, influence, and inevitable success you ascribe to max-level characters is...frankly disturbing. There is no guarantee gods MAKE friends. Even if they do, there is no guarantee that you'll succeed at doing so, because you don't have infinite re-tries to become someone's friend. Even if you do become a god's friend, there's no guarantee that having a god's friendship means they'll throw whatever miracles you want at you, whether because that isn't their personality/nature, or because they aren't allowed to (god politics, cosmological restrictions, insufficient sway, being preoccupied with a threat they consider greater, etc.)

Max-level adventurers are quite powerful. They aren't infinitely powerful, and they don't have infinite chances to do whatever the hell they want. Eventually, you hit a wall; eventually, there's just no more possible paths to success. I won't spring that on someone unless it's very, very clear they've exhausted every possible approach (or, as stated previously, if I as DM know that what they want is just flat impossible even for max-level characters with god friends and powerful artifacts etc.)

Or maybe I'll figure out a way to make an artifact that can do it and quest for what that takes. Or...

Why are you allowed to assume an artifact WILL, always and without doubt, be capable of doing what you want to do?

If the DM is acting in good faith and not just arbitrarily shutting down ways to solve the problem, then eventually I will be able to solve it.

Aha. Here we have a key point of contention. I flatly, and strenuously, disagree with this statement. Like, I don't think it's physically possible for me to disagree with it more than I do.

I will absolutely support my players in damn near anything they want to attempt (well other than becoming outright horrible evil; I don't believe I can run evil games). I have been specifically thanked by my players for being open to considering damn near any idea they throw at me, because it meant a great deal to them that they felt they had the freedom to explore what they want to do, and that I treat them as an equal participant in the creation of a game we can all enjoy.

But I have also said "no."

You may wonder, how on earth could my players feel as they do, feel that I support their ideas and desires, if I sometimes tell them that what they want to do simply won't work? It's because (a) I always explain my reasoning and give them (individually and collectively) a chance to respond, which I earnestly listen to because I know quite well how fallible I can be, and (b) nearly anytime they ask for something I'm really not on board for, I do my best to drill down to whatever their core desire behind the request/goal/suggestion is, and suggest alternatives that I can unequivocally support, so that we all walk away happy.

Even so? I have straight-up told players that certain things they want to do are not possible. Sometimes, it's because of cosmological things (which they may or may not have discovered yet), sometimes it's a limit of irreplaceable resources or finite attempts or exhausted alternatives, sometimes it's just that the idea doesn't make sense to me nor the group overall and the player isn't able to sell us on it. (That last is pretty rare, I strive to be very open-minded and I adore the Rule of Cool.)

It is simply NOT true that the only alternatives are "bad-faith rejection" or "anything goes." That's a false dichotomy. It is absolutely possible to reject player proposals in a good-faith way.

In a game with no PC death, there isn't even death by old age to stop me.

Okay, um...do you really play games that last that long?

The campaign is only gonna last a finite amount of IRL time. I'm not going to run this game forever. I'm honestly shocked I've gotten three years out of it as it stands. I don't, at all, expect to get three more. Real life changes, shifting interests, the potential for future scheduling conflicts...the game WILL end at some point. We don't have the luxury of infinite time. Assuming we do is GOING to lead to illogical and spurious conclusions; you're talking spherical cows in vacuum.

It's also not a true setback. True temporary setbacks can happen all the time. Permanent setbacks are what I'm talking about. Without the risk of permanent death, I can be sure that setbacks, even severe ones, are temporary. The DM would literally have to become adversarial to stop me, and I consider adversarial play by a DM to be bad faith.

Okay so...what is it that makes death AND ONLY DEATH a "true permanent setback"? Because you keep saying that's what is, and I keep saying it's not, and we just keep dancing round and round. I would appreciate if you could spell out, as precisely as possible with minimal assumptions made, why this is supposed to be true. Otherwise, I fear we're just falling back into "yes it is"/"no it isn't"/"YES, it IS"/"NO, it ISN'T" territory. I will, of course, be happy to specify as precisely as I can in return why I hold that other setbacks can be "true permanent" ones.