Is threat of death a necessary element of D&D?

[Glyfair]

I see this come up in discussions on a pretty regular basis when certain topics come up. Many are convinced that D&D is no fun unless the threat of dying is a regular element of the game. Must this be true?

The assumption is that there must be some sort of risk or else the game isn't fun. Maybe this is true, but does that threat have to be death?

Taking a look at another RPG I follow, Heroquest, I note that death isn't automatic in the game. Even when a contest has death on the line (such as the typical D&D combat) the worst result that can be obtained after the contest is "dying." It's up to the GM whether the player actually dies (and it is suggested that it be a decision between the GM and the player based on the needs of the story).

What sort of consequences can motivate players? In another thread a poll suggests that over half the respondents believe that players are more afraid of losing their gear. Isn't that a negative consequence for players to suffer if they fail, instead of death?

Note I'm not saying death shouldn't be part of the game. Clearly if the PC dives into a pool of lava, without magical protection, he should die. However, if he is knocked off a bridge into lava there are plenty of cinematic variations that can allow him to survive with negative consequences (maybe he is badly scarred and has to wear black life support armor and talk like James Earl Jones for the rest of his life).

Thoughts?

 

[Olaf the Stout]

For me, the threat of death makes the game more exciting for me. Knowing that the next combat could be my last makes each die roll seem more important and suspenseful than would be the case if I knew I couldn't die.

It doesn't necessarily mean I want my character to die and I'm quite happy if he doesn't. However, I still need to think that death is a real possibility. Whether or not it is a possibility doesn't matter. So long as the DM makes me think that it is.

I have also found that some players start going out of there way to do stupid things when they know that they can't die. I try not to play with these players.

By a similar reasoning, I love gambling, but I have never enjoyed games of pure chance (i.e. there is no skill involved at all) when no money is involved. I think it is because there is no risk for me and there is no skill involved that I can test how good I am. It is just down to pure luck but with nothing at risk.

Olaf the Stout

 

[Nellisir]

I see this come up in discussions on a pretty regular basis when certain topics come up. Many are convinced that D&D is no fun unless the threat of dying is a regular element of the game. Must this be true?

The assumption is that there must be some sort of risk or else the game isn't fun. Maybe this is true, but does that threat have to be death?

Taking a look at another RPG I follow, Heroquest, I note that death isn't automatic in the game. Even when a contest has death on the line (such as the typical D&D combat) the worst result that can be obtained after the contest is "dying." It's up to the GM whether the player actually dies (and it is suggested that it be a decision between the GM and the player based on the needs of the story).

What sort of consequences can motivate players? In another thread a poll suggests that over half the respondents believe that players are more afraid of losing their gear. Isn't that a negative consequence for players to suffer if they fail, instead of death?

Note I'm not saying death shouldn't be part of the game. Clearly if the PC dives into a pool of lava, without magical protection, he should die. However, if he is knocked off a bridge into lava there are plenty of cinematic variations that can allow him to survive with negative consequences (maybe he is badly scarred and has to wear black life support armor and talk like James Earl Jones for the rest of his life).

Thoughts?

I've been thinking about this, and the more I think about it, the less I think death is necessary or even (on a regular basis) interesting. I've been toying with the idea of giving characters negative hitpoints equal to their regular hit points, and possibly slicing the full hit points into "normal" and "staggered" groups (except staggered would allow move or standard actions as normal, and full actions would cause damage vis a vis disabled). Unfortunately, I'm not running a game and can't experiment on players right now. I can see a number of potential problem spots (increase in PC disability likely to lead to increased mortality, ironically; and increased drain on healing magic, for two), but possibly some roleplaying benefits.

 

[Glyfair]

For me, the threat of death makes the game more exciting for me. Knowing that the next combat could be my last makes each die roll seem more important and suspenseful than would be the case if I knew I couldn't die.

Here is the issue from a DM point of view. My most recent game has had a lot of player turnover. Almost everyone is an adult, and real life interferes and players drop out. I have 3 regular players during the time (plus a player who went to college and plays when in town).

I have a subplot that has been developing "off-camera" while they are off on a longish quest. Once the players return, they may not have anyone who was involved with this subplot, and may be missing key information. Already one of the three players has died. Another has been close to dying several times.

Death can seriously hamper the cohesiveness of a game. If the party at 11th level is entirely different from the party at 5th level the game loses it's narrative in a sense. For some, that's not an issue. However, many (most?) games have that as an issue.

Take the adventure paths. Aren't there clues planted in early adventures that are important towards the end? Do they work if the parties at 1st level, 10th level and 20th level are completely different? Wouldn't they work better if death was a rare and serious event?

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

I see this come up in discussions on a pretty regular basis when certain topics come up. Many are convinced that D&D is no fun unless the threat of dying is a regular element of the game. Must this be true?

No. However, for me it's true. There has to be a risk of death. Just not too high!

The assumption is that there must be some sort of risk or else the game isn't fun. Maybe this is true, but does that threat have to be death?

Many of the other possibilities are worse than death. I know I don't want to be captured (I hate prison-escape plots as they almost always make the villains look like idiots; many GMs are bad at writing these plots; villains rarely have a reason to leave PCs alive and in captivity anyway and frankly I don't have the 200 point IQ necessary to break out of a prison the way characters do in novels - well, not that the novel character need a 200 point IQ, as the villains are almost always idiots, but GMs usually run more competent villains) and DnD 3.x rules makes losing items so harsh that many players would just suicide their character and bring it in a new one.

Taking a look at another RPG I follow, Heroquest, I note that death isn't automatic in the game. Even when a contest has death on the line (such as the typical D&D combat) the worst result that can be obtained after the contest is "dying." It's up to the GM whether the player actually dies (and it is suggested that it be a decision between the GM and the player based on the needs of the story).

FATE has something like that. If you "die" you're "taken out" instead, which can mean anything (eg forced to run away; the rules are free-form enough that running away is easy; no AoOs, no one ever chases you due to the rules, etc). FATE rewards you for letting the villain live, though. Beating a villain is difficult, but often bringing them to "taken out status" just takes too long and too much effort, so they "offer you a concession", which means you get a fate point. Also, arresting a villain makes sense. I've yet to fall into a situation where I was knocked unconscious by villains without PCs to rescue me, and for that matter any time a FATE PC ran into that situation I've always gone out of my way to make sure they survive.

Falling unconscious is pretty harsh in DnD. Why wouldn't the villain kill you if they've disabled you? You have less than ten hit points left; one quick stab and you're done. I've seen lots of PCs in this situation who didn't die only because the villain was so busy they couldn't spare an action to stab the -5 hp guy.

Villains have this bad habit of being evil, and the higher-ranking ones are usually smart enough to realize why leaving the disabled PC alive is a bad thing. The only way that PC lives is if the rest of the party wins, or at least manages to escape while carrying a badly wounded and unconscious PC. (That tends to slow you down, especially if the PC wore heavy armor.)

What sort of consequences can motivate players? In another thread a poll suggests that over half the respondents believe that players are more afraid of losing their gear. Isn't that a negative consequence for players to suffer if they fail, instead of death?

I agree, but this (fear of loss of treasure) is the fault of the rules. In D20 Modern I never saw this happen. You can always get a new AK-47, often by beating someone over the head and stealing theirs, but getting a new life is impossible, so death was feared far more than losing gear. (Of course, the PCs still feared jail...) The rules made equipment so non-valuable that PCs complained of having nothing to spend money on.

Note I'm not saying death shouldn't be part of the game. Clearly if the PC dives into a pool of lava, without magical protection, he should die. However, if he is knocked off a bridge into lava there are plenty of cinematic variations that can allow him to survive with negative consequences (maybe he is badly scarred and has to wear black life support armor and talk like James Earl Jones for the rest of his life).

Maybe it's just this example, but I don't like it. Character development should be up to the player. I would not want my character altered like this; and if another player didn't like the idea, it shouldn't be forced upon them. A player might just drop or suicide a character like that and start a new one.

 

[Umbran]

"Necessary" is like "never" or "always" - it is an absolute, with no room for compromise. So, is the threat really necessary? Probably not. I myself have played in games that haven't had credible threat of quick death, and had fun.

But don't take it the other way, either. Hammers are not completely indispensable, but most toolboxes have them. The threat of death is a useful too, and like others used judiciously it often works wonders. Of course, there's occasionally a case where it isn't the right too, and they, of course, you shouldn't use it.

 

[Telsar]

I think it's more the threat of some permanent disability that's necessary. My house rules say PCs never die until their player wants, but if they are "dying" for too long, they take on permanent Flaws (from Unearthed Arcana or the SRD). My players avoid that as much, or more, than they would avoid death.

Plus those players who write out 10-page backgrounds for their characters, and those whose characters develop relationships in-game, didn't waste their time. Players who do those things are usually happy to play their character with an extra Flaw; gives them "character" and something to RP about.

 

[MoogleEmpMog]

In answer to the thread title:

No, it is not necessary. I have played in games using the D&D rules where character death was never a possibility except via player consent. If it were necessary, the game could not be played without it, and this is pretty obviously not the case.

Is it DESIRABLE?

That's a more interesting question. To me, that's an emphatic "no!" - I don't need or want gameplay to dictate character death in an RPG because character death in an RPG generally means eliminating a player from the game. That strikes me as bad, bordering on TERRIBLE, design in a non-competitive game for three or more players.

In my opinion, the D&D model, which became the default for the RPG industry because it's how D&D did it, is the absolute worst possible model for in-game fatal consequences. If you consider the following:

Gameplay Death----No Gameplay Death
Fast Resurrection-----Slow Resurrection

D&D falls on the side of Gameplay Death and Slow Resurrection - a combination that both cheapens the impact of non-gameplay (consensual PC or NPC) death AND manages to remove a player for an entire session in a significant majority of cases.

 

[Olaf the Stout]

Here is the issue from a DM point of view. My most recent game has had a lot of player turnover. Almost everyone is an adult, and real life interferes and players drop out. I have 3 regular players during the time (plus a player who went to college and plays when in town).

I have a subplot that has been developing "off-camera" while they are off on a longish quest. Once the players return, they may not have anyone who was involved with this subplot, and may be missing key information. Already one of the three players has died. Another has been close to dying several times.

Death can seriously hamper the cohesiveness of a game. If the party at 11th level is entirely different from the party at 5th level the game loses it's narrative in a sense. For some, that's not an issue. However, many (most?) games have that as an issue.

Take the adventure paths. Aren't there clues planted in early adventures that are important towards the end? Do they work if the parties at 1st level, 10th level and 20th level are completely different? Wouldn't they work better if death was a rare and serious event?

Death isn't always permanent in the world of D&D. There are a number of spells that can be used to bring PC's back from the dead. Sure, when they are lower level the PC's may not be able to cast them themselves, but they probably can still find someone that can. You can then turn the situation into a plot hook. The PC's now owe someone a favour. You can use this to send them off on their next adventure.

Olaf the Stout

 

[Midknightsun]

Necessary in the general sense? No. I, however, like to actually have there be a chance my character could die. As stated above, though, too many deaths gets old quick. Too much lethality becomes ridiculous. And heck, no one even has to actually die, but i prefer the threat to be genuine. As a DM, I've killed very few characters, even though I prefer to have the spectre of death pop up now and then and wave hello to the party. Makes the victories that much sweeter for my players. And in truth, I've never had deaths cause a problem with plots at all. The key is to keep your plots open ended enough that one player's death isn't going to derail or seriously sidetrack the whole campaign. That's why I like to come up with a contingency plan or two just in case.