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

[Glyfair]

Without the threat of death then there is no consequence for the 1st level wizard to charge in against great wyrm red dragon wearing only his underwear and using only a rotted quaterstaff.

.
As I've said many times, sure there is. It's just not death.

Just off the top of my head: The red dragon swats the wizard away effortlessly and knocks him unconscious to talk with the rest of the party. When the wizard wakes up he has multiple serious wounds, broken bones, etc. He has reduced speed, reduced attack and a spell failure chance until he heals naturally or by high level magic.

Then again, if appropriate there might be no major consequences. The GM feels that fits the wizards character and has the red dragon sitting there ignoring the wizard's attacks and laughing at him.

Besides, killing PCs can be both fun and give good dramatic story telling.

Killing PCs for fun sounds too much like the killer DM style that most hate today. That may not have been meant like you say it, but that is what it sounds like.

As for good dramatic story moments, you are right. This style doesn't take that away.

Let's take an example I read in a recent thread. The player's high level character fell into lava and survived the damage. The player said "That's stupid, of course I die." That works in this method.

On the other hand, that character could just be immersed at the side of the lava and be seriously scarred and injured. It cements his fall to the dark side of the force after he surives, so he is both mentally and physically changed. That fits as well, and in most games takes the PC out of players hands, but still avoids death.

The assumption many make here is that players will never choose death when "not death" is an option. That might be true in their game, but it's not true in all games.

In fact, I think if they tried this style they might be surprised by their players. The lack of "random death" (meaning some random element decides whether there is death or survival, even just an attack roll) can change the player's perception of death. It no longer has a stigma of "losing" and can even gain a feel of "winning."

Still, the point was that for me, death was the appropriate consequence for Gnigel. Anything less would have smacked of deus ex machina & thus been a worse story & have felt like cheating. In another situation, another setback may have been just as acceptible as death. In this one, not so much.

Then decide he dies instead of the other choices. If death "feels right" then choose it.

Death isn't gone in this method, it's just a choice rather than something imposed.

 

[RFisher]

Then decide he dies instead of the other choices. If death "feels right" then choose it.

Sure. I already said that wasn't a deal breaker for me.

& in fact, that's more or less what really happened in Gnigel's case. I have no doubt that the DM would've worked with me to figure out a different fate if that had been important to me. It just wasn't formalized.

 

[Fenes]

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?

In our campaigns we do fine without the actual threat of death. Our characters of course fear death, and won't do suicidal things.