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

[Umbran]

The point of playing the game is not to have a 'connection' to your fictional alter-ego... the point of playing the game is to "play".

Time has shown us here at EN World that there is no one single point to the game. Different people play for different reasons - the point of the activity depends upon the person, not on the activity.

Please stop asserting that you know why other people do or should play - it basically assumes you know them better than they do themselves, and that's disrespectful, insulting, and very likely just plain wrong.

If there's something unclear about this, please feel free to send a mod an e-mail to discuss further.

 

[Kahuna Burger]

It's hard for me to imagine a D&D game -- or an action movie or novel -- without the threat of death and dismemberment,

Just out of curiousity, did you see Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom? If so, did you notice from the opening "timestamp" that it was a prequel to Ark? Or, for a more recent example, of all the criticisms laid at the feet of the star wars prequels, I have never heard anyone say that they failed because we all knew that certain characters simply were not going to die.

I have seen several action movies and read novels knowing with no doubt whatsoever that the characters were either living, or if they died somehow coming back - some by virtue of being prequels were designed that way. I can't say it decreased my enjoyment of them, but it's possible that others find themselves bored during "tense" scenes knowing there is no real threat of death.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Why would one want to use such a system? It would be to make the PC's more Kirk-like.

Player: Maybe I could get the gun from the guard. Is the guard paying a lot of attention to me?

DM: Roll a Sense Motive check.

Player: 15 or 5.

DM: He seems to be distracted by what's happening out the window or His eagle eyes are on you and his finger twitches near the trigger of his weapon or You aren't sure.

The current D&D mechanics already handle this perfectly. Like Kirk, the player guages the situation and then decides whether or not to act. Like Kirk, the player might try to Bluff the guard to distract him so that he can make an attempt.

Unlike Kirk neither the player's decision nor the outcome is prescripted.

Of course, I don't think that there is anything demeaning about trying and failing.


RC

 

[Eric Tolle]

Yes

What is a better adventure/action movie? The one where the main characters face serious dangers, or the one where they just wade through the scenes without any fear of losing?

Which is a better game? One where the PCs wade through the scenes without fear of losing, or one where the players spend two full sessions planning for one simple encounter?

From an earlier game group: our 3rd-level characters had to bust some pirates out of prison. Because the players were so worried about getting killed by the guards, they spent well over ten hours of game time making and discarding plans, looking for weak points, hemming and hawing, and generally being reluctant to do anything. I was bored to tears.

Seriously- I'll take "Let's storm the castle" over ten hours of planning and waffling any day. The "wait a minute, lets think this through before storming the castle" line is pretty much a sign that the game is going to stall for at least an hour- and likely for a couple game sessions. Life is too short for that kind of crap.

 

[Kahuna Burger]

Star Trek does not look like that. The Star Trek model would go something like this:

Player: I try to take out the guy who's holding the phaser on me.

GM: Roll for it.

Player: [rolls & fails]

GM: He's too alert. You know that if you tried it you'd almost certainly get disintegrated.

Player: Dang. OK, I go through the door like he's telling me to.

The player has tried to get the PC out from under the gun, but the PC hasn't actually tried (just like Kirk doesn't try—he either does it or doesn't do it).

I like that.... the huge variability in results for d20 rolls in particular can lead to some truely doofus moments for even the most heroic characters.... there are many situations where failing the running jump should be an abort at the last second rather than missing the other side entirely and looking like a dork.

 

[Raven Crowking]

I like that.... the huge variability in results for d20 rolls in particular can lead to some truely doofus moments for even the most heroic characters.... there are many situations where failing the running jump should be an abort at the last second rather than missing the other side entirely and looking like a dork.

Take 10. No variables at all.

RC

 

[Mort]

Just out of curiousity, did you see Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom? If so, did you notice from the opening "timestamp" that it was a prequel to Ark? Or, for a more recent example, of all the criticisms laid at the feet of the star wars prequels, I have never heard anyone say that they failed because we all knew that certain characters simply were not going to die.

I have seen several action movies and read novels knowing with no doubt whatsoever that the characters were either living, or if they died somehow coming back - some by virtue of being prequels were designed that way. I can't say it decreased my enjoyment of them, but it's possible that others find themselves bored during "tense" scenes knowing there is no real threat of death.

But there is a huge difference in a a roleplaying session and a novel or movie.

In many novels or movies you don't actually know whether the character is going to live or die unless you spoil it for yourself - so threat of death is a real in the book (look at all the hoopla prior to the Deathly Hallows release)

But in a movie or a novel, even if you do know the character lives (such as it's a prequel) the suspense and action can be of a different sort - a "how does he get out of this mess" sort (that's why people watch James Bond movies), and with a good writer and a good directer it can be pulled off (otherwise it's a boring mess). This is really hard in an RPG to do consistantly without the players essentially coming to rely in Deux ex Machina and other DM intervention fudging) and this can get old and irritating fast - I suppose just like a good director a good DM can pull it off - but these are rare (from what I've seen).

 

[mmadsen]

I have never heard anyone say that they failed because we all knew that certain characters simply were not going to die.

There's a reason I italicized threat in my post. Yes, we know our heroes survive, but we still feel the tension throughout the book or movie, because we feel like they could get hurt, even though we know better.

In a game with Drama Points (by whatever name you prefer), the characters can enjoy plot protection while still leaving the players something to lose.

 

[Mallus]

I'm not saying that having Kirk-like PCs is a good thing...

Who wouldn't want a Kirk-like PC? And for the record, I'm using "Kirk-like" to mean "heroic, smarmily charming, and superhumanly competent", not "melodramatic, shirtless and tending towards fat".

Isn't being "Kirk-like", and its swords-and-sorcery equivalent "Conan-esqre" a big part of the reason we plays these games?

 

[Mallus]

In many novels or movies you don't actually know whether the character is going to live or die...

You honestly don't?