The ethics of ... death

[Umbran]

Because monsters lacked instant kill effects (and were all roughly equal in power) there was never any reason to avoid a combat or attempt any tactics other than your standard allotment of powers.

That doesn't make a whole lot of sense, to me. It seems to imply that the only real risk to combat is the instant-kill effects. While pre-4e had such effects, they weren't so common as they were the only risk of death. Folks died from non-instant-kill stuff all the time. So, I submit that your posit does not adequately explain the stated observed behavior.

 

[Jester David]

Because monsters lacked instant kill effects (and were all roughly equal in power) there was never any reason to avoid a combat or attempt any tactics other than your standard allotment of powers.

That doesn't make a whole lot of sense, to me. It seems to imply that the only real risk to combat is the instant-kill effects. While pre-4e had such effects, they weren't so common as they were the only risk of death. Folks died from non-instant-kill stuff all the time. So, I submit that your posit does not adequately explain the stated observed behavior.

I'll expand a little.
Pre-4e, instant kill powers existed, as did other nasty monster powers with penalizing effects that lasted beyond a single combat: poison, disease, ruined weapons. While rare they were always a possibility, so entering combat with an unknown foe was always a tactical risk. Even if you won there might be consequences that impact the next fight above and beyond spent healing and powers.
Add into this the idea of "balanced" encounters, which meant the majority of the time fights should be fair or slanted towards the PC's favour. Which has been around for two editions and really permeated the gamer unconscious.

So you know (as long as you survive) there'll be no long term consequences, and as long as the DM is playing by the rules you have a reasonable chance of winning. What reason is there to avoid combat?

I think this was really seen in watching people initially play Next and Caves of Chaos, where they might just charge into a room filled with orcs with a "I'm sure they're all minions." mindset.

Now, this doesn't mean people will start playing stupid and charge in like a pack of feral barbarians. If stealth is faster and might mean half as many fights, then stealth is the better option. It just means, all things being equal, there's no reason not to charge.

 

[Jester David]

Death is really a lovely example of a gaming Catch-22. Well, Mexican Standoff really as there's more than one factor.

If death is motivated by the story and you can only die when it makes narrative sense, why are you playing a game? You're really just engaging in shared storytelling. If you're just going to regularly ignore the rules when they get in the way of the story, why have them at all?

But if death happens regardless of the story then you might very quickly have a party of characters unconnected to the start of the story with far less narrative tie to the events. Death makes it inefficient to have characters with real personalities, backgrounds, and goals as they're just going to die.

Without the risk of death, combat is less thrilling; the game loses the opportunity for snatching victory from the jaws of defeat or sudden last minute reversals. But if every combat is a grim struggle to survive the game becomes exhausting and the thrill is lost.

Save or die effects make the game cheap and swingy, adding an artificial difficulty to encounters and monsters. But without monsters that are variably challenging and more deadly, monsters can become samey.

 

[Aenghus]

I've seen some players use "feral barbarian" tactics in all versions of D&D (every RPG, come to think of it). Typically their game allows the tactic to work most of the time, and they don't mind making up new PCs (who are just like the old character) when it doesn't.

The constant spectre of sudden random unpredictable PC death just makes me as a player stressed and nervous, I don't enjoy it at all, so it's really no surprise that I avoid such events in my games. Death happens but the concatenation of "sudden" , "random" and "unpredictable" , like death by falling safe from a passing plane, is something I actively avoid. "Sudden" as in no chance to avoid it tactically, "random" in that player skill has little or no effect and "unpredictable" as there is little foreshadowing of the possibility in a strategic sense. .

It was interesting reading the replies to my question in this thread. I get the impression that the particular subset of rules emphasised and the tastes of the group involved gravitate to a particular style of play, and many many styles of play are possible. Adaptations include - pawn play, with reduced attachment to expendable PCs; multiple PCs per player; a stable of PC candidates; less combat than the average game; an emphasis on avoiding combat and making any fights as unfair as possible in the PC favour;

 

[Argyle King]

Requiring 3 saves to avoid death means we have the same SoD effect, with a lesser chance of "D" and some ability of the character to act in the interim. Let's assume we change Petrification from "one save or turned to stone" to "3 saves, one every second round - fail the first and you are slowed, the second and you are immobilized, and the third leaves you petrified/dead. What does this mean in-game?

To the PC, it means three chances to save instead of one. It's less likely three saves will be failed, and in the meantime the character can still act while slowed. So this is a lesser threat, but sooner or later all three saves fail and the character dies. Over time, PC's make a lot of die rolls, so one roll (however unlikely) that will have a huge impact will get rolled eventually.

What about to the wizard picking spells? Well, if he picks Stone to Flesh, the monster gets three chances to save, if he succeeds on the first he's slowed but still acting, and I have to wait until round three to see whether he will be immobilized, removing his threat. If combat is generally over in three rounds anyway, what good was that? Pick a spell more likely to work. This was the problem SoD/SoS/"save and nothing happens" spells in 1e/2e - they were too chancy, especially as saves improved at higher levels, to be worth it. Just hit him with another Magic Missile/Lightning Bolt/Cone of Cold - a least that does something every time.

I'm not a big fan of "Save or lose the character" effects. If character life is cheap, I think it does lead to players not investing in the characters. No sense spending more time on his personality, backstory, etc. just to have him killed his first time out - I'd like to spend more time playing the character than creating it. Higher death rate games, as noted above, need rapid character generation systems as well. Of course, that's back in the days of random character generation. Now, we get a lot more choice (point buy stats, feats, spell selection, etc.) If my tricked out fire wizard dies at 4th level, I guess I can always bring in an identical tricked out fire wizard to replace him. Now how impactful was that death? Plekor the Pyromaniac is dead - long live Felgar, Bringer of Flaming Death!

A lot of what you say here is exactly why I would prefer to use something like the disease track for SoD effects. I dont like how binary saves are. With a sliding scale, there is struggle between the attacker and the target. Narratively, I feel this is better. Mechanically, it opens up more options. a mage might be able to take an action to attempt to make an upcoming check for the target worse; an ally of the target (warlord anyone?) might likewise try to help resist... that doesnt even touch on the idea of feats, backgrounds, or school specialties which might make some of your effects harder to resist (less steps on the condition track.) There would never be a time when nothing happens; the situation would evolve with each step and give both attacker and defender a chance to be involved.

 

[Ahnehnois]

Add into this the idea of "balanced" encounters, which meant the majority of the time fights should be fair or slanted towards the PC's favour. Which has been around for two editions and really permeated the gamer unconscious.

While I don't think that you have to play the game this way, I do think that the idea of "balanced" encounters is toxic to good gaming. I also am finding that you're right in that the influence of this principle is insidious, and as I learn more about my own DMing I realize I'm not immune to it myself.

Save or die effects make the game cheap and swingy, adding an artificial difficulty to encounters and monsters.

I think any of those descriptors only apply relative to a very specific set of expectations. For instance, someone who watched Firefly and signs up to play the new Firefly rpg might see instantaneous and unexpected deaths of main characters as anything but "cheap". It's a Joss Whedon trope!

 

[Ahnehnois]

The constant spectre of sudden random unpredictable PC death just makes me as a player stressed and nervous, I don't enjoy it at all, so it's really no surprise that I avoid such events in my games. Death happens but the concatenation of "sudden" , "random" and "unpredictable" , like death by falling safe from a passing plane, is something I actively avoid. "Sudden" as in no chance to avoid it tactically, "random" in that player skill has little or no effect and "unpredictable" as there is little foreshadowing of the possibility in a strategic sense.

I think one of the best moments from The Wire was when one of the main characters, who has been built up for years as a canny but ballsy antihero, gets shot in the back of the head by a twelve year old for no real reason while shopping at a convenience store. There are a variety of interesting dramas out there that challenge our assumptions about classic Hollywood tropes, including "plot immunity" for stars (which in D&D is essentially the PCs). I can see why people might be reluctant to go there, but I always suggest that you try with an open mind things that you're uncomfortable with. That said...

It was interesting reading the replies to my question in this thread. I get the impression that the particular subset of rules emphasised and the tastes of the group involved gravitate to a particular style of play, and many many styles of play are possible.

...if you are not running The Wire as a game, then you may want to change the rules that affect the frequency and the conditions of lethality. Some styles do demand a softer touch.

I've seen some players use "feral barbarian" tactics in all versions of D&D (every RPG, come to think of it). Typically their game allows the tactic to work most of the time, and they don't mind making up new PCs (who are just like the old character) when it doesn't.

Can't say I'm a big fan of the "feral barbarian" school of PC strategy.

 

[Li Shenron]

If death is motivated by the story and you can only die when it makes narrative sense, why are you playing a game? You're really just engaging in shared storytelling. If you're just going to regularly ignore the rules when they get in the way of the story, why have them at all?

I agree with all the rest of your post, but I focus on this which is the part I don't agree with.

The reason why I disagree is that "no death" does not equal "invincible", as there are other outcomes possible to combat and other dangers. I could totally run/play a game of D&D where a PC cannot die (unless the player agrees) but that doesn't mean that dropping to 0 hp or failing a SoD roll will be ignored or irrelevant. Instead of dying, a single PC will be presumably out of order at least for the rest of the encounter, and possibly longer, perhaps with a long-term penalty that they have to find a "cure" for. A TPK would definitely equal to losing the battle, but could be replaced with being captured, or just left behind maimed and robbed of all possessions. By all means, "dying" or losing the battle would be affecting the story, and as such it's still worth playing it!

 

[Umbran]

Add into this the idea of "balanced" encounters, which meant the majority of the time fights should be fair or slanted towards the PC's favour. Which has been around for two editions and really permeated the gamer unconscious.

To be honest, that's just a codification of something that's required for a long-running campaign. If the majority of fights are *not* slanted in the favor, then statistically speaking you'll quickly have no PCs.

So you know (as long as you survive) there'll be no long term consequences, and as long as the DM is playing by the rules you have a reasonable chance of winning. What reason is there to avoid combat?

You're playing a game of imagination. You can't imagine consequences other than death and losing equipment? Well, perhaps we are in a circular argument, here. If, for you as a player, the only things that matter are life and equipment, then yes, threat of loss of those will be the only things that motivate you. If, as a player, other things matter to you, the GM can motivate you by threatening them.

I think this was really seen in watching people initially play Next and Caves of Chaos, where they might just charge into a room filled with orcs with a "I'm sure they're all minions." mindset.

How people play in a playtest or one-shot convention game should not be compared to campaign play. In a Next playtest, the players have little to lose anyway, because the PCs are not generally expected to have continuity outside of the one adventure. There's nothing lost if you don't survive, as you won't be building on the current adventure anyway.

 

[Jester David]

To be honest, that's just a codification of something that's required for a long-running campaign. If the majority of fights are *not* slanted in the favor, then statistically speaking you'll quickly have no PCs.

For combat encounters yes. But this assumes combat encounters as a baseline and not just "encounters". If you throw a kill-your-ass powerful threat against the play it quickly becomes a non-combat encounter. They might sneak past. They might negotiate. They might try trickery. They might try non-standard combat such as an ambush or using the terrain. They might try to use the monster, luring it into combat with other monsters.
Suddenly, the encounter becomes something else.

But if it's just killable, it's less working to just walk up and punch it directly in the throat.

You're playing a game of imagination. You can't imagine consequences other than death and losing equipment? Well, perhaps we are in a circular argument, here. If, for you as a player, the only things that matter are life and equipment, then yes, threat of loss of those will be the only things that motivate you. If, as a player, other things matter to you, the GM can motivate you by threatening them.

I was speaking in broad generalities. Yes, there are many ways to motivate players. But players quickly latch onto those. The idea of the amnesiac orphan wander PC has become a trope for a reason: because players know lazy GMs will often use friends and family against them.

And the thing is, those options still exist with death. They don't go away. You can have a high mortality game while still motivating PCs with other options. Regardless, when you take death off the table you lose an option, you lose a choice.

How people play in a playtest or one-shot convention game should not be compared to campaign play. In a Next playtest, the players have little to lose anyway, because the PCs are not generally expected to have continuity outside of the one adventure. There's nothing lost if you don't survive, as you won't be building on the current adventure anyway.

Your game is still over and you still have to sit out the rest of the game. That's reason enough to try​ and stay alive.