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

[Haffrung]

I run a gritty fantasy D&D where death is on the table. Even routine combats can end in PC deaths if the PCs are weakened, or just have really bad luck. I enjoy the tension you get in games when there are stakes on the table - I find it focuses the minds of the players and inspires them to think more creatively rather than sleepwalking from combat to combat and employing SOP tactics.

One important consideration with this approach, though, is you need to make it clear to the players that scouting, evasion, and retreat are important tactics. They shouldn't assume that every encounter is calibrated to be defeated in a standup fight. I find once players recognize that they have a lot of control in where and when or even if they engage in combat, they more readily accept the potential for PC deaths and TPKs.

 

[Nytmare]

As a GM, though I used to fall heavily on the side of games appearing to be deadly, but behind the screen things were secretly in the players' favors; nowadays I'm a much bigger proponent of games with a Death Flag mechanic built into them. Something where the characters aren't in danger of death unless one or two things happen first (and it being almost entirely a player's decision).

As a player, I'm down for whatever.

 

[nevin]

2
It sucks equally for me at 1 and 3. 1 and everything always sucks and theres no reason to ever expect it not too suck. The other way i might as well watch a fantasy movie. Never rusking death takes away the feeling if challenge.

 

[Lanefan]

Much depends on whether revival mechanics are available in the game and-or setting.

My own preference is 'deadly' provided revival mechanics exist. I don't mind if those revival mechanics aren't guaranteed to work every time nor do I mind there being some sort of long-term consequences for dying a la 1e D&D's permanent loss of a Con point on revival; but not having revival at all kinda puts the game on 'hard-core' mode...which can be fine, but is a bit OTT even for me.

What I really dislike are situations where the characters can't die at all no matter what they do, be it due to a softie GM or due to the system somehow protecting the PCs for plot reasons.

 

[der_kluge]

Probably 1 or 2, but at least with an impression of 3.

As a GM, stuff happens, and PCs could die, but if I've done my work right, I shouldn't create a scenario so terrible that it kills people. And since the PCs generally outnumber the monsters (or at least overpower them), there's a solid chance they'll be able to revive anyone who does go to zero. Also, I'll never kill a character (or at least try not to) for being brave. I'll kill them if they do something stupid - but if they play smart, and even if they're brave, I want to reward that, not punish it.

But, I find that I tend to make my combats generally under-powered. My games are kind of like "The Witcher", but on "story mode", because to me, the combats are narrative roadbumps to help continue the story along. I do try to make the various "end fights' really tough, though, because I think that's important.

 

[Monayuris]

I'm a veteran B/X & AD&D player. So 3. I don't mind if my character dies, it is part of the game. I really don't like it when DM's fudge to keep my character alive. If I made a choice that leads to my character's death, then so be it. I should be allowed to suffer the consequences of my own mistakes.

As a DM, I run the style of game that I prefer as a player. So I run at 3. I make it clear at the start that character death is a real possibility in my game. I don't fudge dice and I don't spare a player when they make a poor choice.

I have a stack of Character Death Certificates printed out, that I hand out when characters die.

 

[Zsong]

Number 3. I play runequest and Cthulhu alot for that reason. I want to know that any combat can mean death and not to enter it lightly.

 

[der_kluge]

Also wanted to add that I really hate the kind of old school stuff I see in certain modules where, even though the party is like, level 4, there is a very real chance they could just happen upon a CR 12 encounter, or whatever. I guess that can make sense from a realism perspective, but I just hate it as a player, so I don't do it as GM.

 

[aco175]

PCs rarely die in my games. Adventures are designed for certain level characters with some easy encounters and a few dangerous ones where death is possible, but mostly smart play and tactics prevail.

For example, in the last game the PCs started a fight with pirates and a pirate leader. Most of the 20 bad guys were bandits with a 12AC and 12HP- for a party of 12th level PCs. The leader and his bodyguard were ok tough, but the whole fight would take 3-4 rounds with a fireball and assassin going first. Then a dragon turtle was called by the pirate leader on the 2nd round after being nearly killed. Things changed in that fight with the 4 remaining bandits and 3 followers fleeing or pulling back leaving the PCs to finish the leaders and the dragon. One PC dropped below 0hp and one NPC almost died. The fighter and cleric almost died, but did not.

 

[Bedrockgames]

My default preference, especially as a player (as a GM while I have this preference, I am happy to scale it to the group), is death is always on the table, let the dice fall where they may, no plot armor or only killing people for being stupid. I think I spent my formative gaming years when it was very much light on lethality, and there was a growing consensus to only kill player characters if they missed clear warning signs they were going into extreme danger. For me, the threat of death adds a level of excitement and a level of unpredictability that enhances play and lets me know things were not all planned out in advance. I like the idea that the whole game can turn on a single die roll like that, where a major PC can just snuff it, even if it isn't particularly climactic. I like to lean into the notion that this is a game with random dice rolls.