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

[Xetheral]

I guess I am just curious as to what other parties view as an Acceptable 'We screwed up, we lose' scenario. Does it entirely depend on if it creates a 'satisfying story'? Or can they accept the loss due to screw up/bad decisions even if it ends in an ignoble tragedy for the party?

For my part, there are always enough simultaneous plots going on that failing at any one (or more than one) of them isn't a campaign-ending hard loss. The outcome of failure might indeed be tragic and irreversible, but the game doesn't stop because there's still so much to do! (Including dealing with the consequences of the failure.) The game might change--a failure to successfully defend the party's stronghold might change a game with a home base to something itinerant--but the game doesn't stop just because the PCs failed.

The exception is if the PCs knowingly opt for a heroic last stand. If they do that, then it's indeed game over if they lose, but since it was their choice I wouldn't call it a "hard loss" so much as an "epic conclusion".

For reference, characters can and do die in my campaigns, they just don't do so very often. They're only going to die if the players make bad choices or get in over their heads. But because I prioritize player agency and telegraphing danger, players routinely have the information they need to be able to make good choices and avoid getting in over their heads. As a result, most character deaths at my table are conscious sacrifices or deliberate gambles. (That's not to say I run easy encounters--my game worlds are full of ultra-deadly, level-inappropriate potential encounters, but since I run Combat-as-War style the expectation is that players only engage those opponents if they've first successfully weighted the odds in their favor. Choosing to engage in a "fair fight" is indeed the sort of deliberate gamble where characters sometimes die.)

I'm honestly not sure where my games fall on the spectrum discussed in this thread. Since character deaths are rare and the result of informed choices, maybe I'm closer to the no-random-death side. On the other hand, the threat of death is still always present (even if it's avoidable) so maybe I'm more on the pro-fear-of-death side.

 

[Campbell]

I like death as a consequence for D&D, but the idea that in a game where PC death is off the table that there are no permanent consequences is just counter to just about all my experiences basically in most games that are not D&D. Right now I'm playing in 3 ongoing games (Masks, Infinity, and Vampire). Fear of my character dying is like the last thing on my mind in any of those games. In Masks it literally is completely off the table. Still I feel like there is a tremendous amount at stake in all of these games, including a lot of permanent consequences.

 

[tetrasodium]

For my part, there are always enough simultaneous plots going on that failing at any one (or more than one) of them isn't a campaign-ending hard loss. The outcome of failure might indeed be tragic and irreversible, but the game doesn't stop because there's still so much to do! (Including dealing with the consequences of the failure.) The game might change--a failure to successfully defend the party's stronghold might change a game with a home base to something itinerant--but the game doesn't stop just because the PCs failed.

The exception is if the PCs knowingly opt for a heroic last stand. If they do that, then it's indeed game over if they lose, but since it was their choice I wouldn't call it a "hard loss" so much as an "epic conclusion".

For reference, characters can and do die in my campaigns, they just don't do so very often. They're only going to die if the players make bad choices or get in over their heads. But because I prioritize player agency and telegraphing danger, players routinely have the information they need to be able to make good choices and avoid getting in over their heads. As a result, most character deaths at my table are conscious sacrifices or deliberate gambles. (That's not to say I run easy encounters--my game worlds are full of ultra-deadly, level-inappropriate potential encounters, but since I run Combat-as-War style the expectation is that players only engage those opponents if they've first successfully weighted the odds in their favor. Choosing to engage in a "fair fight" is indeed the sort of deliberate gamble where characters sometimes die.)

I'm honestly not sure where my games fall on the spectrum discussed in this thread. Since character deaths are rare and the result of informed choices, maybe I'm closer to the no-random-death side. On the other hand, the threat of death is still always present (even if it's avoidable) so maybe I'm more on the pro-fear-of-death side.

It sounds like we have similar styles in this regard at least but your post raises a good point that nicely shows why the mechanics need to support loss conditions for players to feat along the way to success or failure at any narrowed strand within a single isolated plot thread. At any given time there are five things going wrong right now & a few more are being sucked into the drain because the players chose to focus on this particular element. The players may or may not be explicitly aware of those other things they are ignoring & could be causing the problems themselves by solving a problem they are in the process of solving.

That's not to say that it's an endless loop of nice job breaking it hero, just that the world is a complex living thing filled with people who have their own desires & motivations they act on & that those people are doing that while the players are doing the same. Someone mentioned a swamp being blighted earlier, of course there's a swamp being blighted... probably more than one in fact. Yea it didn't get stopped, instead these other things were solved. Even if no thing was "solved" the act of doing whatever was being done built ties with allies ho now owe a debt, revealed new information that could be useful towards meeting some goal, gained information, weakened a foe or whatever.

 

[MGibster]

In D&D of even a somewhat "old school" bent, it has always seemed to me that the game outright encourages inducing paranoia in your players. Making them distrust every offer of allegiance, every kind gesture, every calm scene, every peaceful town. Making them rightfully believe that they're in constant danger of losing their ability to participate in play, aka, in constant danger of character permadeath, for light and transient causes. I've even been told, just recently and on this very forum, that such paranoia absolutely is how play should work.

I had a player who made it a point to tell me after every combat encounter that they were reloading their weapon. After a few sessions I just said, "Your character isn't just a competent gunfighter he's a highly skilled and respected gunfighter. I will always assume you reload your weapon when combat is over and I will never screw you over by saying you forgot to reload." I often feel as though many players are suffering from post traumatic gaming disorder due to gaming with bad DMs. I have certainly run into players who were overly concerned that I was out to screw their characters over at every opportunity and that sometimes gets in the way of the fun. What you describe above does not make for a fun game. You are correct.

 

[Vaalingrade]

I often feel as though many players are suffering from post traumatic gaming disorder due to gaming with bad DMs.

Plus the well being poisoned by this style of DMing being canonized in gamer culture. Often as an example of a 'classic' DM.

 

[loverdrive]

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

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.

Yes and no.

"After Lorenzo the Mad has been stopped for good and his reign of evil and darkness has been put to an end, Joaquin de la Rouco went searching for ways to restore the city of Rorate to its former glory and bring back all the innocent lives lost there from the other side of the Gates of Death" is a cool epilogue for a character. Doesn't mean that we will play long enough to see this noble quest come to fruition.

 

[loverdrive]

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.

No death gives opportunity to do stuff that I wouldn't normally do. I would feel bad for arbitrary telling a player that an undead knight has desintegrated their heirloom sword, destroying the spirits residing there forever.

I wouldn't feel bad about telling the player "You are alive. You barely managed to dodge the thin green ray... But you feel like the sword in your hand grows lighter... A heartbeat later, you feel agony and sorrow of the spirits of your ancestors residing there meeting their final end. "It's okay, kid. That's a fine end. Now show him, what you are made of", - you hear the truly last words of your father in your head. So, what ya gonna do?"

 

[Maxperson]

No death gives opportunity to do stuff that I wouldn't normally do. I would feel bad for arbitrary telling a player that an undead knight has desintegrated their heirloom sword, destroying the spirits residing there forever.

I wouldn't feel bad about telling the player "You are alive. You barely managed to dodge the thin green ray... But you feel like the sword in your hand grows lighter... A heartbeat later, you feel agony and sorrow of the spirits of your ancestors residing there meeting their final end. "It's okay, kid. That's a fine end. Now show him, what you are made of", - you hear the truly last words of your father in your head. So, what ya gonna do?"

Okay, but that's a personal choice. I've lost heirlooms and such in games where death was part of the game. I've had my characters tested sorely in game where death was around. Removing death doesn't change the options available to you, instead it only changes the options you will choose to exercise.

 

[Maxperson]

Yes and no.

"After Lorenzo the Mad has been stopped for good and his reign of evil and darkness has been put to an end, Joaquin de la Rouco went searching for ways to restore the city of Rorate to its former glory and bring back all the innocent lives lost there from the other side of the Gates of Death" is a cool epilogue for a character. Doesn't mean that we will play long enough to see this noble quest come to fruition.

Sure, the campaign can end before it happens. However, assuming it doesn't end early, Joaquin de la Rouco should be able to eventually find a way.

 

[Lanefan]

Personally speaking, testing limits is not condoned at my table unless we're explicitly doing a playtest. In actual play we're trying to use the system (including any houserules) as a tool, not deliberately test that tool to see where it fails.

I'm always looking to test the tool to see where (or if) it fails, and if-when it does I expect the DM to houserule it to not fail.

The idea that players would deliberately test the limits of what is acceptable in a group game is a foreign concept to me. If by chance one is new enough to the group to not know where those limits are, I think it's far better to simply ask, rather than experimenting with what one can get away with.

My general philosophy on such things is "do it till something tells you to stop, then analyze the reasons why whatever's telling me to stop is doing so, then if those reasons don't make sense, question the reasons".