Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="EzekielRaiden" data-source="post: 9703287" data-attributes="member: 6790260">I never said otherwise. I have, in fact, repeatedly used DL modules as my example of the most maximally railroaded style of D&D one could possibly play, bordering on "having scripted lines for every player".I am solely using them as disproof of the claim that the everpresent threat of death--even if it is not "constantly imminent danger of death"--is a "structural necessity" for D&D.Perhaps; perhaps not. Something more substantial than mere assertion is required. As with a great many things in game design, there are always costs to any choice. Some of those costs can be quite steep. Some of them can be steeper still in specific contexts: skittish players, for instance, which is a problem I already have in abundance.Not possible. I would need to kill their characters off before they are created.More importantly, this is precisely the "shock therapy" I already addressed upthread. For some players (IMO and IME a sizable minority, but a minority nonetheless), doing this is great, because then they know death is a real threat and thus don't need to be reminded but will still keep it in mind.But for other players--IMO and IME a slim majority--it does exactly the opposite of what you want. Instead of enhancing their motivation, this deadens it. They see that any investment they might put in not only can but will be ripped away from them suddenly, without warning, without anything they could've done to stop it. So why bother? Or, alternatively, if they are going to bother, they're going to take immense pains to ensure, as much as humanly possible, that those risks cannot happen. Hence, they will avoid all creative or risky endeavors, because creativity is often dangerous and risk is always dangerous. They'll veto any group plans that would risk death, because they don't want their participation in play to be ripped away because they tried to get a tiny, temporary advantage; it's a simple cost-risk-benefit analysis, the benefit is small, temporary, and not guaranteed to be useful, the risk is (as they see it) both extremely high in likelihood and extremely high in potential loss, and the costs are often high for attempting, but the opportunity cost of not attempting is low. So they take the safest route each and every time.If they're outnumbered by the risk-neutral or even risk-seeking players, these risk-averse players will turtle up more and more and more, often building lingering resentment because they feel their preferences, their participation, are valued less by their supposed companions than See Big Number Happen and Experience Crazy Stuff even if that crazy stuff ends up being upsetting (to the risk-averse players) rather than enthralling. And the reverse happens if the risk-tolerant and risk-seeking players are outnumbered by risk-averse ones; the risk-tolerant will become more and more annoyed at the group avoiding stuff that probably could succeed but which has a risk of serious problems, while the risk-seeking will build up that same resentment as before, finding the majority stuffy and boring and unwilling to have fun.Trying to force someone who is risk-averse to become risk-tolerant or even risk-seeking is, frankly, rude as hell and that exact attitude is one of the reasons why I don't have a lot of sympathy for OSR fans who complain about people ignoring their preferences and desires. Their approaches frequently come with baked in hostility toward any view other than their own: you MUST be risk-tolerant (or, preferably, risk-seeking), or else the game Just Isn't For You, Go Play Something Else. (Often with quite a bit more judgmental-ness than that!)</blockquote>

Verification