The ethics of ... death

[Jester David]

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!

I was describing the extremes, establishing the limits of the arguments.
Yeah, of course you can punish in other ways. You can run a game without death, or even a middle ground game with rare death when appropriate or motivated by player/character stupidity. But you can also run a game with SoD effects and deadly monsters and, due to luck or skill never have a player drop and avoid a PC treadmill.

 

[Umbran]

If you throw a kill-your-ass powerful threat against the play it quickly becomes a non-combat encounter.

Problem: you don't generally know how powerful it is unless 1) the GM tells you or 2) you engage and get your butt kicked.

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.

Hold that thought....

Yeah, of course you can punish in other ways.

Okay. That's your problem, right there. "Punish".

I am not the player's Daddy. Nor am I their ruler, their drill sergeant, or their adversary. I do not punish them. I am there to work with them, to present them with something interesting. Constantly winning easily is dull. So, there has to be risk of failure. But the risk, too, should be interesting. Sometimes, starting a new story is more interesting than continuing the old one. But frequently, falling over dead is only slightly more interesting than constant easy wins - because if you die that story is over, and who finds the blank pages at the end of the book to be entertaining?

I am playing with mostly sane adults. If they need to be punished to motivate them, well, there are people they can pay to have that done in the red light district, but please don't come to my table expecting to be punished. It isn't going to happen. I'm not from a school that supports much negative reinforcement.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

I am playing with mostly sane adults.

*grumblegrumble* Lucky bastard... *grumblegrumble*

 

[Jester David]

Problem: you don't generally know how powerful it is unless 1) the GM tells you or 2) you engage and get your butt kicked.

Sometimes you just know. There's a difference between tough and overwhelming.
Giant red dragon... back away slowly and avoid sudden movements.

Okay. That's your problem, right there. "Punish".

I am not the player's Daddy. Nor am I their ruler, their drill sergeant, or their adversary. I do not punish them. I am there to work with them, to present them with something interesting. Constantly winning easily is dull. So, there has to be risk of failure. But the risk, too, should be interesting. Sometimes, starting a new story is more interesting than continuing the old one. But frequently, falling over dead is only slightly more interesting than constant easy wins - because if you die that story is over, and who finds the blank pages at the end of the book to be entertaining?

I am playing with mostly sane adults. If they need to be punished to motivate them, well, there are people they can pay to have that done in the red light district, but please don't come to my table expecting to be punished. It isn't going to happen. I'm not from a school that supports much negative reinforcement.

Let's not overanalyze my word choice.

 

[Umbran]

Let's not overanalyze my word choice.

What analysis? Words mean things. You said "punish," I figure you *mean* punish.

 

[N'raac]

"Punish" implies the GM must "teach" the players the proper way to play, and discipline them when they fail to do so.

 

[billd91]

"Punish" implies the GM must "teach" the players the proper way to play, and discipline them when they fail to do so.

Punish might also just imply that you're putting them through the wringer - no correction intended.

 

[Li Shenron]

I was describing the extremes, establishing the limits of the arguments.

Yep, that's a good way of setting the discussion, although you made it sound like this one extreme would be unplayable, since you rethorically asked what would be the reason to play in that way

 

[Balesir]

I am playing with mostly sane adults.

I have mostly insane adults, so my views are pretty similar but not quite identickle.

 

[Aenghus]

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...

As it happens I tend to dislike The Wire and other serious dramas as well, (and I have tried to expand my horizons but just confirmed my ability to appreciate such fare is constrained). Possibly one reason is that I have Asperger's Syndrome and have difficulty appreciating the nuances of human behaviour. I prefer more straightforward stories, they are less confusing to me.

Similarly, I have been playing and running D&D and other RPGS for over thirty years(sigh) and have have loads of my PCs die, often suddenly, sometimes by SoD effects. In the games I run lots of PCs have died, though less frequently in recent years as I developed my own style, I've even had some TPKs.

...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.

Yes. Please accept that I just prefer lower lethality in my games, and balanced encounters, that it's an informed choice, and that that style of D&D was, is and will continue to be a valid option for many groups now and in the future.

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

It's a style of play enjoyed by a lot of people. Occasionally (rarely) even I like turning off my brain and just have my PC charge in and damn the torpedoes! But I don't do it in the wrong genre, or when it would interfere with the enjoyment of other
members of the group, seeing as I am in the latter category the vast majority of the time.

We are all entitled to our our own tastes, but some of us just don't belong in the same group.