Caliburn101
Explorer
For me, if you are playing a traditional swords and sorcery style game, then death is definitely one of the stakes. I mean how would the character if he really existed feel about it? He'd be worried about death a lot I think. For me that says it all because I want player character unity to the degree I can get it.
Now, on the flip side, there are a whole lot of things in life worth pursuing besides the avoidance of death. In fact a few are worth risking death. I know if someone were threatening my loved ones I would assuredly risk my life to save them. So it seems crazy to say the only stake is death. The stakes for me are identical to the stakes that actual character would have if he really existed in such a fantasy world. At least that is the goal.
And death only really means the end of your character during the first five or six levels. After that, you will pay and perhaps your character will suffer but the party will find a way to get you raised.
I want my games to be about good play. Good preparation, good strategy, and good tactics are all important to success. I want parties that exhibit such characteristics to survive more often and those that don't to survive less often.
I really don't see the argument here between everyone. Most games have death as a possibility. Most games also have a lot of other stakes besides death.
Yes, there isn't actually a real argument here. I think it is the general experience of rpg'ers that combat in rpgs is most frequently 'to the death'; that without the risk of death for PCs in such combats it would be a relatively dull affair, and on the flipside, that all kinds of other challenges can of course be suspenseful and entertaining. Nobody actually said otherwise, but some contributors to the thread conflated the two into a 'you cannot have both' 'either/or' argument.