How deadly do you like your game (as a player or DM)?

[BookTenTiger]

I started running my Curse of Strand game (the infamous and fun Death House) as a "dream sequence" so that my group could try out playing online for the first time without long-lasting consequences. Dead characters died horribly but returned in the next scene.

Then I totally changed the campaign and made it my own, with multiple vampire barons and tyrants. When the characters started to fight their first vampire, we had a quick discussion. I asked them how deadly they wanted the campaign:

3) Deadly. When we are in over our heads, let the dice fall where they might.

2) Somewhat deadly. When we are in very dangerous situations, give us a clue to a way out.

1) I don't want my character to die.

I consider all three to be valid options. As a DM, I prefer 3. I love to have a world with dangerous places that the players are absolutely free to explore, with deadly consequences. I find new characters breathe a lot of life into a campaign. (Ultimately the players voted for 2.)

Then I was playing in my other D&D game, and we are facing a pretty tough combat. I realized that if things went south, my character had a pretty good chance of dying... And I was shocked by how sad that made me! I realized that as a player, I'm definitely a 2.

So where are you on the scale, as a DM or a player? Or would you use a different scale altogether?

NOTE: Do not denigrate other play styles in this thread! People like to play D&D in many different ways, which are all valid. No yucking other people's yums!

 

[Umbran]

When considering how deadly a campaign will be, to start with, I think less about how deadly situations are handled, and more about how often those situations arise.

For example, some GMs build their games so that any time you draw a sword, someone in the party is apt to die, and others will work more like a work of fiction has a rise and fall of threat, and there's only real risk at the high points.

 

[Aldarc]

In general, I would suggest wearing a mask at the table unless you want the game to become too deadly.

 

[Flexor the Mighty!]

Let the dice fall where they may and have it be challenging. Players have a good chance to overcome with smart play but can face a TPK if they are excessively foolish.

 

[Ath-kethin]

As a DM, I'm firmly in the 1-but-make-it-feel-like-3 camp. For example, when a PC died in an encounter back in the 3.x days, I gave the player the option of becoming a ghost using the Ghostwalk campaign setting rules.

In a 5e game a couple years ago I had a character who had to make a last desperate maneuver, bringing themself and two other PCs to 0 hp because it was the only way they could think of to frighten off the pack of winter wolves that was handing them their butts. We cut the scene as the PCs collapsed, and they awoke a few hours later in a cave full of winter wolf corpses.

I like to keep things intense and absorbing, but as a DM I am ultimately on the same team as the players.

 

[zarionofarabel]

As a DM definitely #1 as dead PCs no longer have narrative momentum and that's way more boring than them being able to add to the story.

As a player #3 cause I can just make a new character which is almost as fun as playing the old one.

 

[GMMichael]

. . . I consider all three to be valid options. As a DM, I prefer 3. I love to have a world with dangerous places that the players are absolutely free to explore, with deadly consequences. I find new characters breathe a lot of life into a campaign. (Ultimately the players voted for 2.) . . .

You let your players "vote?" Very deceptive. I like it

I prefer PC death to be 100%, George R. R. Martin, on the table. It's a cheap way to ramp up the excitement: deadly scenarios. The irony is that a deadly game should have less combat, or else no main character is going to remain "main." A game that isn't very deadly - the GM provides ways out of combat - will likely have more combat, since the stakes are lower.

 

[ninjayeti]

Somewhere between a 2 and a 3. I'm definitely a "let the dice fall where they may" kind of guy. That said I'm fine with the DM dropping a hint if the PCs are about to get in over their heads. Dying because you pushed a bit too far and wandered into the boss fight with half HP and no spells feels too arbitrary because players didn't have enough information to really base a decision on. But if players make informed decisions then they should live (or die) based on those decisions.

While I would be happy to run a campaign at a 1 if that was what the players wanted it would be a hard pass for me as a player.

 

[Ralif Redhammer]

I like to see games move from 1-3 and back again. Difficulty should not be set at a permanent threshold, but should ebb and flow. Sometimes you need the thrill of a nail-biting fight to really bring the game to life, and sometimes you just want to get to roleplay your character at the inn before stomping all over some skeletons.

Grinding difficulty all the time gets old, but so does every fight being a cakewalk.

 

[payn]

I guess I'd be in camp #2. I dont mind character death, but sometimes it comes out of nowhere, with no chance to avoid it, at no fault of the player or character. In those instances, I dislike character death, but I do like a swingy systems like 3E/PF. It can make combat really exciting when you have a drag out 10+ rounder and if a player drops due to exhausting all resources and being out of luck, then it feels right.

I like action/hero points being given to players. This allows me as GM to take the gloves off and the players a get out of death card. The points need to be managed by the player so taking too many unnecessary risks will eventually lead to a dead character, but not so risky so that players break out the ten foot pole again.