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

[Blue]

I want fear of death to be felt with some regularity. But in 5e there's a really wide buffer between fear of death and actual death, especially if you mentally adjust death to "not just getting up at the end of combat like if knocked out".

I have, as a player, told the DM that combats were too easy and to step them up. He has - two sessions ago five level 10 characters (high rolled ability scores, low-to-moderate magic items) went unprepared against a CR 21 foe (Arasta from Theros) and defeated it. We were at full going into the encounter - but only because there was an earlier encounter we could have taken but the characters aren't bloodthirsty and bribed our way past even though we could have taken them. It was terrifying, and a ton of fun. I wouldn't want to do that every time, but I do want to be challenged.

(Side note, the next combat was with liek two dozen low CR creatures. We felt like heroes as we curbstomped them. Just as important for contrast. I give our DM lots of props for that.)

As a DM, I roll in front of the players and don't pull punches. Heck, I have a 4 person game that last session went against the worse foe in the entire adventure right after the rogue (their best damage dealer) missed a trap and was paralyzed for 10 minutes. I didn't expect them to be able to take it, and train my players that there are times to retreat. They didn't, and managed to survive. But I gave the uninvolved player the sheet and she did all the rolls for the encounter and taking a fiendish delight in hurting her fellow party members - I couldn't fudge rolls or HPs or AC if I wanted to.

In another game I run, I've told the players it's somewhat sandbox and not level specific. They want to wander into something, that's on them. Their paladin has convinced them to go after one of the biggest threats in the room - I threw some side quests in there so they had the option of going after them and leveling up, but they will soon be in deadly territory if they choose to push things towards violence - or don't work hard to make sure it doesn't slide that way. In this game (point buy, few combat magic items), most combats are hard or deadly and I run many of them per day, even using a slower rest variant during exploration parts to make it work out sensibly for the narrative.

All of this, in the past 6 years of running I've had no character deaths in combat. I had one character death as a martyr saving another when one player wanted to retire their character.

5e has a large buffer between fear of death and actual death once you're past the first few levels. I advocate pushing for the first with some regularity.

 

[Fenris-77]

It depends on the game and genre expecations. OSR, its deadly, that's the point. But some other game, with different expectations, it looks different. Player expectations matter too. Sessin zero is the key.

 

[Gammadoodler]

As a player, I'm good with things being deadly as long as the deadliness can be meaningfully tied to PC decisions and where there actually is a chance for 'dice to fall where they may'.

The 'haha, yur ded. lol' style of play drives me crazy, but I'm a big believer in actions having consequences.

 

[pemerton]

I played a fun session of Classic Traveller on Sunday. (Full write-up here.)

The session included a lot of exploration, but there were a few key moments of action resolution: negotiating an arrangement with rival NPCs to pool efforts and resources in an archaeological excavation, and trying to maintain that cooperation when displays of psionic ability (very controversial!) risked disrupting it; drilling and blasting through ice without damaging the structure buried beneath it; performing scientific analysis of vegetable spores; finding and opening secret doors, using both mechanical and psionic means; and a saving throw for vacc suit integrity after taking damage from a flying alien animal.

Only the last of those involved an immediate risk of physical injury, and even then its not likely that the consequence will be death. That didn't stop the session being engaging and exciting.

 

[Zsong]

Gotta have random deaths from bad rolls or the game becomes meaningless to me. Fail to remove that trap and you are dead. If I Fight a beholder one hit from a disintegration ray will
Mean death. It’s just DM railroading for me if he is taking out the element of death. When end up being passengers on the DM’s story time for me. I don’t want to play a single season without the potential. Now that’s just me. I understand how people feel otherwise.

 

[pming]

Hiya!

As I said in my first post, I generally prefer a good amount of deadliness in games. An epic game is meant to be one with a single focus that will take the length of the campaign to complete, as opposed to a story arc or single adventure (such as destroying the One Ring). I'm not generally a fan of this type of campaign, not only because they take a lot of effort, but because they can be fragile (and often railroady).

Ok...I think I'm starting to see something here. Tell me, when did you start playing RPG's? Any version of D&D in particular? I have a guess...but I want to see how close I am.

At any rate, IMNSHO, there is no such thing as "length of a Campaign" in the original sense of the term. A Campaign, in original D&D terms, is the game in which everyone is playing. It has nothing to do with a story or plot, per se, just a group of people getting together to play in a consistent, continuing fictional game world with an advancing timeline. That's it. The use of Campaign being for "a series of events and modules with beginning, middle and end of a particular, specific storyline". I refer to these as "Campaign Arc's"; because they are simply story arcs taking place within the Campaign proper itself. YMMV.

For example, I technically still have my original 1e AD&D Greyhawk Campaign running...which I started back in 1982. Admittedly, we haven't picked it back up in about 20 years, but if Dean, Mike, Mathew, Chris and Roger wanna "do some 1e for old times sake" (yeah, we're all old with families and all that comes with it...sigh...), they'll whip out their oh-so-cleverly named characters (Tron, Hawk, Agoran, Dargoth Tuskmonger and, er, Roger the Barbarian; and me, Denakhan) and we'll pick up a couple months after we just defeated Lolth on her home plane (re: Q1, The Demonweb Pits). ... ... ... So, that campaign didn't "end"...that particular STORY in the Campaign ended (Re: what I call a Campaign Arc), but not the campaign. Which brings me to...

GoT is more the exception, rather than the rule though. Even with GoT (based on the ending of the TV series), the most important characters were not given much note early in the story. With such a large cast, it's nearly impossible to figure out who the "main" characters are, especially when the ones who get the most focus tend to die. Danarious is pretty much the only character from the first book that is obviously meant to be of vital importance to the endgame (unless you count Cerce as the "villain").

I think this is a matter of perception. I think GoT is a pretty dang amazing series. Yes, they did drop the ball on the last season (TV, I've never read the books), but a solid series with lots of unexpected twists and turns.

I would posit that GoT actually has a LOT in common with a good "D&D" campaign; it's got a beginning, some stuff in the middle where PC's die, leave, come in, etc, and then an end to the initial story hook ("The return of the 'true heir' to the Iron Throne"). There are sub-plots going on all over the place...winter is coming, white walkers, three-eyed raven, lost son of the last king able to hold the other kingdoms together, revenge, lust, incest, betrayal, and even the redemption of a "whoring drunkard noble, expected to die in a puddle of his own puke....redeeming himself and, in the process, his family to a degree", as well as the opposite...a noble born daughter fleeing, hiding and becoming a cold-blooded magical assassin, skulking about in the dark.

If you look at GoT from a "gamer perspective", it's obvious who the PC's are. Each has their own "hook" and sub-sub-plots...goals, desires, fears, strengths and weaknesses. Sometimes this works out (re: the ones who survive until the climax at the end of this story)...and sometimes...not so much (Red Wedding anyone?). IMNSHO, this would have been an AMAZINGLY well run "Campaign". The GoT Campaign could still be 'going', with John Snow, Arya, Cercie and Jaime, Bram, and Samwell ...all continuing on playing in the Campaign in the aftermath of the "return and downfall of the Queen of Dragons".

Anyway...sorry for the distraction there. Just found it interesting the idea of a "campaign" being "Getting a PC from level 1 to 20 via progression through a single storyline" now being so common and standard that it's actually shaping Players and DM's minds into what D&D "is". Go back to the 80's and even 90's, and any DM that ended a session with "...and you all live happily ever after. The end", and closes his books would be looked at in a confused way. Then the Players would say... "Uh...what? We still have an hour and a half left to play. I mean, now that the Dragon Queen is destroyed, I want to clean up then head back to Greenbow to check on the innkeeper and his wife; I gave them my word that when this was all over I'd help them rebuild...for a cut of the business, of course. Gotta have a retirement plan, right? So...what happens next...do we get a discount at the best inn here in town? We DID just save the world, after all..."

I get that in this modern age the DM would reply with a confused look on his/her face and say "Huh? What do you mean... 'next'? The story is over. Make new guys...".

^_^

Paul L. Ming

 

[QuentinGeorge]

I still don't think people understand that ASOIAF was only subversive in the "anyone can die" sense because it tricks you into believing the protagonist is not the protagonist and someone else is. The story is an always was, Jon Snow's and he undergoes a fairly standard hero's journey (complete with "journey to the underworld, ie death, and back again"

 

[Shiroiken]

Ok...I think I'm starting to see something here. Tell me, when did you start playing RPG's? Any version of D&D in particular? I have a guess...but I want to see how close I am.

I'm guessing you're wrong. I started 25-30 years ago on 1E AD&D.

At any rate, IMNSHO, there is no such thing as "length of a Campaign" in the original sense of the term. A Campaign, in original D&D terms, is the game in which everyone is playing. It has nothing to do with a story or plot, per se, just a group of people getting together to play in a consistent, continuing fictional game world with an advancing timeline. That's it. The use of Campaign being for "a series of events and modules with beginning, middle and end of a particular, specific storyline". I refer to these as "Campaign Arc's"; because they are simply story arcs taking place within the Campaign proper itself. YMMV.

For example, I technically still have my original 1e AD&D Greyhawk Campaign running...which I started back in 1982. Admittedly, we haven't picked it back up in about 20 years, but if Dean, Mike, Mathew, Chris and Roger wanna "do some 1e for old times sake" (yeah, we're all old with families and all that comes with it...sigh...), they'll whip out their oh-so-cleverly named characters (Tron, Hawk, Agoran, Dargoth Tuskmonger and, er, Roger the Barbarian; and me, Denakhan) and we'll pick up a couple months after we just defeated Lolth on her home plane (re: Q1, The Demonweb Pits). ... ... ... So, that campaign didn't "end"...that particular STORY in the Campaign ended (Re: what I call a Campaign Arc), but not the campaign. Which brings me to...

Then I suppose it depends on how you want to look at things. My first campaign was inherited when my mentor and DM left town, and was honestly a Monty Haul campaign. Once the party was 30th level I'd had enough, but that didn't mean I didn't want to continue to run Greyhawk. I end it by running a world shaking event that changed things in preparation for 2E. That campaign was over, even though the same players continued playing in Greyhawk with the events as canon.

(TV, I've never read the books)

There's the issue. The books are FAR more diverse in their scope, preventing you from figuring out who's important and who's not. Several characters that seem important in the books don't have much impact in the TV series (Lady Stoneheart for example).

Anyway...sorry for the distraction there. Just found it interesting the idea of a "campaign" being "Getting a PC from level 1 to 20 via progression through a single storyline" now being so common and standard that it's actually shaping Players and DM's minds into what D&D "is". Go back to the 80's and even 90's, and any DM that ended a session with "...and you all live happily ever after. The end", and closes his books would be looked at in a confused way. Then the Players would say... "Uh...what? We still have an hour and a half left to play. I mean, now that the Dragon Queen is destroyed, I want to clean up then head back to Greenbow to check on the innkeeper and his wife; I gave them my word that when this was all over I'd help them rebuild...for a cut of the business, of course. Gotta have a retirement plan, right? So...what happens next...do we get a discount at the best inn here in town? We DID just save the world, after all..."

I get that in this modern age the DM would reply with a confused look on his/her face and say "Huh? What do you mean... 'next'? The story is over. Make new guys...".

I used to feel that way. However, over time I've realized that the best campaigns really do have a story, with a beginning, middle, and definitive end. It doesn't have to go from level 1-20, and technically you can pick them back up again (I have a one-shot in my pocket to potentially revisit my 1st 5E campaign). To push a campaign beyond this story usually results on the campaign "jumping the shark," with it taking away from the real glory of the campaign (such as going out after stopping Lolth).

If your campaign has no single overarching story, but is instead a series of unconnected story arcs, then there is no reason to end a campaign until the players or DM want to do something else.

 

[nevin]

Hiya!

Y'see...this is something I don't get. I'm not trying to single you out, Shiroiken, but you made the points so I'm going to use your example as an, uh, example.

Imagine, if you will, The Lord of the Rings as you just described it. The story is about an Evil Ring of Power, created by a super-evil-super-being-of-evil to rule over all the world. Now, you have key characters; Sam, Aragorn, Golum, Nazgul, "the elves", and The One Ring. If you had never known the 'real' LotR story, this one WOULD be epic. The major Characters would still be there...Sam would take the place of Frodo/Sam. The Ring is still the Ring, Aragorn still Aragorn, Nazgul are Nazgul, always hunting for the Ring. Golum is still kicking, etc.

Still epic...just not what we know the story to be.

The same "argument" is used sometimes to justify a Player being given the power to 'veto' the results of a game event if it would "kill/remove" their PC. Kinda like if someone was doing a Star Wars campaign and someone was playing Luke. The Player might make the assumption "Well, I can do anything I want...I can't die. If I die, the entire epic story is ruined". This is the mindset I don't get. A RPG campaign isn't like a recipe for a cake. Baking a cake you can't just substitute floor polish for milk, and switch out plaster for flour. You will not get a cake. But in an RPG? Yes, you CAN switch out Luke for your character Bel'Atha Kurr, the Jedi Apprentice if Luke dies. Will the "normal" Star Wars story, with the whole father/son/daughter thing be the same? Nope! Not even close! Is this bad? Nope! Not even close! In MY opinion...it's BETTER. Because the 'story' unfolds as the Players play the game. That's the draw.
..
Anyway...saying "well, if you take Story/Movie XYZ and then change it completely ...you don't have Story/Movie XYZ anymore!", is perfectly valid and true. But assuming that if that happens, it somehow "wrecks" the story/campaign? That I don't get. It didn't "ruin the story"... it just changed it. Often for the better.

^_^

Paul L. Ming

The flip side of this argument is what I call BattleStar Galactica syndrome, if there is too much danger and everything is an existential crisis then all that doom glokm and death become meaningless. If everything you do is against Nazgul and hordes all you can do is run from or simply mitigate how many npc die because your heroes simply werent possrful enough then the game becomes an unfun crawl through broken glass that only masochists enjoy

 

[nevin]

I still don't think people understand that ASOIAF was only subversive in the "anyone can die" sense because it tricks you into believing the protagonist is not the protagonist and someone else is. The story is an always was, Jon Snow's and he undergoes a fairly standard hero's journey (complete with "journey to the underworld, ie death, and back again"

Yeah I would never play that campaign. In a game where winning always means almost everyone dies, it never feels like you win