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

[Maxperson]

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.

Meh. If I'm playing with someone that goes from Tom to Tom II to Tom III, one of us is leaving the game.

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.

Raise dead is only a 5th level spell and money is plentiful. The PCs can just do it themselves or hire someone to do it

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.

I didn't say it would be fast. I just said it would be easy. Money is found in abundance in 5e. For enough of it, or for money plus a quest for the church, you could find the 17th level cleric you need.

Godly intervention - sure, sounds like an awesome adventure.

That, too.

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.

I get that. My response was to, "Frankly, a "no death" campaign often has MORE opportunity for a DM to torture his players..." The opportunity is identical. You don't get more of it by not killing PCs.

 

[Arilyn]

In a game with character death, I worry about failure and face consequences, death being a possible outcome. If my character dies, then I make a new one and plunge back into play. In a no character death game, I worry about failure, face consequences, but death will not be one of them. I continue to play. It's not that different really.

There are challenges, failure, and amazing victories in both. I have never witnessed players taking advantage of being in a no death game by acting like they're invulnerable. I have played both ways, and they are equally valid, immersive and engaging. It's a flavour if play, that's all. What it is not, however, is a coddling, easy breezy, I can do anything style that it is often denigrated for. Whether you want to play in this style is of course totally subjective.

 

[Umbran]

I get that. My response was to, "Frankly, a "no death" campaign often has MORE opportunity for a DM to torture his players..." The opportunity is identical. You don't get more of it by not killing PCs.

I know several folks who, if they invest a lot of time and effort in a character, are not interested in continuing to play if that character passes. Not in a pouty way, but more in the way of how GMs are usually not nearly as good at weaving a new character into an established story as they think, so that the following play is sub-par by comparison.

The, "I just roll up a new one and jump back in" is not universal.

Edit to add: we see this a lot in live-action game play. The player commits to several years of campaign, and likely makes a significant investment in costuming and props to support that play. If the character dies, say, two-years into a three-year game, the re-investment may not seem to be a great deal, given how they're unlikely to be as hooked into the games main lines of story.

The monetary investment isn't the same in tabletop play, but the general issue is the same. They may not feel that the game will be as fun for the same level of effort, and that may be a fair assessment.

 

[Coroc]

In a game almost entirely about combat, I would argue that fear is more important than 'good vibes'. If players want 'affection' as a prime motivator, they usually find themselves moving towards story games or newer style TTRPGs where combat isn't baked into the experience. There are even games where you don't fight at all.

So I would disagree. While the world of RPGs has exploded into a varied rainbow of experiences, DnD is still a game of play violence and looting (and sometimes talking too).

Out of the game/gameworld, I will agree that the camaraderie around the table (oh man do I miss actual in-person gaming) is what brings me back (even with clunky systems or weird campaigns).

The thing is, the games i have played or mastered which caused most frightening or paranoid situations at the table often were with very little or no combat at all.

Often maybe because fighting would have been certain dead and the players knew it (or very strongly - but wrongfully - guessed it would be).

I also generally disagree that the game is almost entirely about combat. It might be like that, but you can enjoy the games' other pillars as well depending what mixture the DM brings to the table.

 

[Umbran]

I also generally disagree that the game is almost entirely about combat.

Would you disagree that, by page or word count, the rules are predominantly about combat?

 

[HJFudge]

I'd rather move away from the 'Fear of Death' conversation and focus on the 'Fear of Permanent Loss' one.

Many in here have mentioned they prefer no-death campaigns because other consequences can be just as meaningful or even more so.

So I wonder, do you let campaigns end in failure or loss? As in, "The bad guys win, the world/town falls into despair/darkness, the heroes names are a curse on the lips of the people for generations to come" type loss. One where the players switch to a new campaign or something. Is that one of the consequences on the table? If so, I do not think I have a real disagreement. If it is not, why not? Why no hard non-death fail state for the party as a whole?

 

[Warpiglet-7]

a mix is best in my long game experience: rewards and punishment in tandem are best.

approach avoid scenarios are fun.

winning the kingdom is fun for this session but it will get dull if I don’t have to hold it.

gain loss, fear lust all work well as complimentary

 

[Maxperson]

I know several folks who, if they invest a lot of time and effort in a character, are not interested in continuing to play if that character passes. Not in a pouty way, but more in the way of how GMs are usually not nearly as good at weaving a new character into an established story as they think, so that the following play is sub-par by comparison.

The, "I just roll up a new one and jump back in" is not universal.

Edit to add: we see this a lot in live-action game play. The player commits to several years of campaign, and likely makes a significant investment in costuming and props to support that play. If the character dies, say, two-years into a three-year game, the re-investment may not seem to be a great deal, given how they're unlikely to be as hooked into the games main lines of story.

The monetary investment isn't the same in tabletop play, but the general issue is the same. They may not feel that the game will be as fun for the same level of effort, and that may be a fair assessment.

Okay. That's a case by case player decision, though. It doesn't alter the fact that the same ways to torture(word used by the other poster) the players exist in a game with PC death. I'm also not disputing that the flavor of the game changed when you get rid of PC death. All I'm saying is that the only difference in the ways the DM can "torture" the players in a game with death and without PC death is that the game without PC death doesn't have PC death.

 

[Maxperson]

Would you disagree that, by page or word count, the rules are predominantly about combat?

No, but the page count is deceiving. Combat tends to be a LOT more complicated in many games, especially in D&D, so it needs a lot more pages of rules. That page count doesn't make it what the game is primarily about.

 

[Umbran]

So I wonder, do you let campaigns end in failure or loss?

There's two different versions of this question.

1) Your campaign is nearing its conclusion (like, all the PCs are level 20, their personal storylines have generally resolved, and they are coming up on the Big Bad who you expect to be the final antagonist before you do something else.)

2) Something goes awry, and the characters are in a situation such that the obvious natural conclusion is a complete campaign fail The moral equivalent of a TPK in games that have death).

My answers are (1) certainly, and (2) I will consider it, but it depends on how the players view that conclusion.

Stepping away from the question of motivation, just as allowing death for some adds a certain atmospheric spice to the game, not having death serves the purpose of not ending stories prematurely, or in an unsatisfying manner. If that unshceduled campaign failure is unsatisfying, then I probalby won't do it. If it is satisfying, then that's how it goes.