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

[Hussar]

"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.

Umbran for the win. Excellent point. It might be better to say that death might be a consequence some of the time, but, not always. Thus, it's not absolutely necessary, but, it's another tool in the DM's toolbox.

 

[Philotomy Jurament]

My D&D campaigns always include the possibility of PC death, so it's a given, for me. I could see another DM running things differently, though, so I think *necessary* is too strong a term.

 

[uriel1998]

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.

... color me a postmodernist, but I'd say that is player-driven character development. If you choose for your PC to dive into lava (or take a risk of doing so), then it is your choice. The natural consequences of that choice may suck, but...

That said, I'm lucky enough to be playing with a GM who is good enough to turn a PC death (via a string of bad luck in combat) into a plot point for the rest of the campaign.

 

[Eltharon]

It's not necessary (We haven't had a player die for...5 years), but if the players assume they're invulnerable, it can be bad for some games. Imagine this conversation.

Heroic Knight: We have to rescue the princess from Count Evil's Castle!
Rogue: But its crawling with guards, traps, has only one exit, and Count Evil's henchmen are all in the castle in preparation for his plan. We won't last 5 minutes!

But if there's no chance of death:
Heroic Knight: We have to rescue the princess from Count Evil's Castle!
Rogue: YEAH! LETS KICK EVIL BUTT!

OK, it's exaggerated, but in my experience, things like that happen if the players are invulnerable. The players go into EVERY fight, fight EVERY bad guy, and never, ever, flee the combat. If you can scare them (slightly) into thinking that combat is slightly dangerous, then, IMO, thats a good thing. Then again, if you like a heroic game of butt-kickage, then thats not for you.

 

[noretoc]

I think the threat of death is important. Even more so in the game I run as there is no Raise dead or Resurection. Getting someone back from death is almost a campaign in itself. The reason I do it this was was best said by the halfling Belkar. I will paraphrase.

Belkar crashed through ceiling bloodied and beat and about to be killed by a paladin in a fit of rage. Mage blasts said paladin off of him. Belkar laters says to mage "You ruined everything. I worked a long time to get her that mad. Last time i checked raise dead is a 5th level spell and our cleric can cast it four of five a day. Losing your paladinhood in a fit of murderous rage is a lot harder to fix."

Dieing to have the paladin lose his holiness (think emporer in Return of the Jedi.. "Strike him down and take his place at my side"), ultimate act of revenge, rewarded by an evil outsider in the afterlife.... If you stay dead.

If you come back in an hour, it is just cheese.

 

[Mishihari Lord]

The answer to this question will obviously vary for each individual. For me, it's an emphatic yes - there does have to be a threat of dying for verisimilitude and to make success or failure something I care about. This is the reason I can't take TOON for more than one session. If there's no consequence serious consequence for failure then I get really bored, and AFAIC death is the only meaningful, practical negative consequence. It's meaningful because I don't get to play the character anymore. It's practical because in a variety of discussions I've seen recently here and on rpg.net, players have said that they'd rather have their character dead than crippled or lose their magic items. While I don't agree with this myself, the prevalence of the sentiment makes using consequences besides death impractical for most groups.

 

[Korgoth]

I think it's so necessary that if it isn't there, you're not really playing D&D.

Let's see: you go on an expedition to a mysterious site of the ruined past in order to loot it... but aren't in fear for your life? Sounds like a total waste of time to me.

 

[shilsen]

As noted by multiple posters, this'll vary for different people. For me, personally, the threat of death is definitely not a necessary element and not really a desirable one. What I want in a game (as both DM and player) is for there to be consequences for PC choices, whether positive or negative, and for PCs to have to deal with the possibility of failure. While death can function as such a consequence and as a sign of failure, I generally find that it is a much less satisfying one (in both the short term and the long term) than many other possibilities.

In my current Eberron game (see sig), I've effectively taken death out of the equation via house rules regarding action points and swashbuckling cards, and we've had one actual PC death in 58 sessions. That death, being an unusual event, lead to campaign-changing (and potentially world-changing) events, and the fact that the PC returned from it made it no less momentous. That's effectively how I want death in the campaign to work.

 

[Thurbane]

It's like a novel or movie for me: high adventure should include high risks, otherwise it's just hard to be drawn in...

 

[Kahuna Burger]

It's like a novel or movie for me: high adventure should include high risks, otherwise it's just hard to be drawn in...

It's like a novel or movie for me - willing suspension of disbelief is needed to be drawn in and too much gratuitous death ruins that for me.

An rpg without a chance of random meaningless death to me is like watching an episode of an action series from several seasons back that I missed the first time. If it's a good series, then the fact that I know none of the main characters are going to die decreases my enjoyment not one whit. Good actions series have other kinds of failure to be concerned about (O'neil isn't gonna die, but I don't know if SG1 will save this planet or not), the non "mission" related parts are entertaining in their own right, and my willing suspension of disbelief is more than sufficient to still enjoy a tensely directed combat scene. If it's a bad series.... well, I probably don't care enough about the characters to feel either way about them dying anyway.