Canis said:
Please take this not as a slam, but in the spirit intended...
Fair enough, although your next sentence certainly belies those words.
Canis said:
If death is the
ultimate risk you can imagine... you need to apply some more current to your imagination module. Even in real life, there are FAR worse fates than death, IMO. And in D&D, with an appropriately fiendish GM behind the screen, I'd generally rather die than deal with "Save or dying." If my party gets routed and I'm dead, someone will tear off an ear and get me resurrected. And if that totally fails, or we're too low level for such, I'll roll a new character and get on with my life.
However, if my party gets routed and I'm simply lying on the floor dying... something entirely WORSE is going to happen. Usually the kind of thing that makes me call the DM something unprintable by Eric's Grandma rules.
In a game with a crafty GM, I'm going to call straight-up D&D death the coward's way out.
But in the game you described death isn't final, its just a temporary inconvenience.
You had me agreeing with you somewhat until the "rip off an ear part". And there's where we diverge. Death
isn't the ultimate risk if its easily circumvented. If all death means is a few gold thrown to the local priesthood for a resurrection spell, or another charge used on a staff, or some other simple plot device, then you're right, there are much worse things. But I'm from the school of play that says death - barring a major, MAJOR game-altering miracle - is pretty damn final. Resurrection and raise dead spells don't grow on trees. Gods don't answer character's every beck and call. There aren't "mostly dead" and "all dead" divisions at the morgue. Dead is dead.
And to me, if a player simply thinks "oh I'll just make another character and get one with it" after dying, then I don't think they're terribly invested in their character, do you? And if they're not invested in their character, how can anything be worse than death? No matter how nefarious a DM you are, if a player doesn't care much about their character, why would they care about their group, or the fate of the village/city/world/plane/whatever? (The player might care about the fate of the other players in the game, but that is outside the game, and I view that differently.)
However, in a game where I'm invested in my character and environs, and where death is a real threat, a game ender for that character, then the worst thing that can happen is to sever that connection - ie, character death. This is especially true in games (like I usually play in) where you start characters at low levels, not at some artificially high level. IMO, soft-pedaling the risk of death through various contrivances (save or dying, easily available death-erasing, etc), only cheapens death, and lessens that risk. It also makes the noble sacrifice cheaper as well - and my experience has been that well done noble sacrifice moments usually become one of those key, unforgettable moments in a game that people talk about well after the game has ended.
We don't have character deaths often in our games, but we do have them - and they're all very memorable moments, even the relatively senseless ones. They're made all the more memorable because of their finality, and because of the degree to which each player becomes attached to their character, and the group, and its goals and such. I am of the firm opinion that everyone would be much less attached to their characters (and the group, world, goals, etc) if there was a lessened risk of mortality.
Some folks don't like death as a central element of their games. I'm not criticizing that style, its just not for me.
) within the party, so new characters come into play with the same XP and total wealth as everyone else. I, personally, find the practice less chaffing (at least in theory, since I never 
