Those groups where no one ever dies

[shilsen]

Step one is to not blindly attack creatures. People shouldn't be drawing swords at the slightest provocation or trying to kill everything they come across outside of cities. Especially in D&D-land, where a creature's power is not necessarily obvious from its appearance. Combat is deadly and should be avoided when possible, unless you know that you have the upper hand.

Step two is, utilize in-game resources. Knowledge skills in 3.5 specifically cover information about monsters, though some information might be commonly known (dragons are dangerous). Information on NPCs can be gathered from both knowledge (local, nobility, etc.) and social skills.

Step three is, don't game with a DM who's out to "win".

I was about to respond to Lord Pendragon's post, but saw this, which essentially nailed my points perfectly. What Spatula said.

 

[frankthedm]

Tell them to have thier next of kin rolled up.

Encourage the PCs to cultivate friendships with non party characters that might take up thier cause should they fall.

The human characters should have families [or least have a bastard child with a barmaid] so the elf or the dwarf can take a few years of down time and then give the human's children a chance to avenge thier parents defeat.

 

[Ogrork the Mighty]

Reward with no risk isn't very rewarding.

When your DM states he wants to kill PCs, that's a little hint that you'll be making up a lot of characters.

Who said there's no risk? Not me. Last time I checked you lose a level when raise dead is cast. Not to mention the challenges that a good DM can devise just to receive the spell.

 

[hong]

Reward with no risk isn't very rewarding.

This attitude is an interesting one. I surmise that when you build a house, you make sure to drink a few beers before starting work. Nothing like the risk of falling off a ladder while carting a load of bricks to add spice to life!

When my sister plays SimCity, she invariably turns all the disasters off and plays at the lowest difficulty setting, to ensure she'll get the exact city she wants. Ditto when she plays Civ, except there she also reloads whenever she loses a battle. Is she therefore having Bad Wrong Fun, when as far as I can tell, she has absolutely no interest in the risk side of the game?

People game for lots of reasons, and for some, one reason is the "builder" aspect. The reward is in creating something from nothing, and this is entirely independent of what risks are involved.

 

[Spatula]

This attitude is an interesting one. I surmise that when you build a house, you make sure to drink a few beers before starting work. Nothing like the risk of falling off a ladder while carting a load of bricks to add spice to life!

The risk of screwing things up while sober (and possibly wasting the time, money, and effort put into it) is enough for me...

When my sister plays SimCity, she invariably turns all the disasters off and plays at the lowest difficulty setting, to ensure she'll get the exact city she wants. Ditto when she plays Civ, except there she also reloads whenever she loses a battle. Is she therefore having Bad Wrong Fun, when as far as I can tell, she has absolutely no interest in the risk side of the game?

Heck, I do the same when I play Civ. But then, combat is one of the game's weaker aspects. My tank should have beaten that pikeman, dammit!

People game for lots of reasons, and for some, one reason is the "builder" aspect. The reward is in seeing something grow from nothing, and this is entirely independent of what risks are involved.

Yeah, yeah, I know there are different player types and all of that. If all you want to do is build up characters, though, you don't need the added complication of doing it via playing the game - you can do it at home, alone, with nothing but a pen, paper, dice, the rulebooks, and your imagination. In this case, playing the actual game only gets in the way of what the player wants, in that it presents a possiblity for his creation to be killed off. The DM can eliminate that possibility by fudging rolls or by always throwing softballs. But at that point, you might as well toss out D&D's conflict resolution mechanics, describe to the DM what your character does, and let him adjucate what happens on his own without any randomness getting in the way. The end result is largely the same either way.

 

[hong]

Yeah, yeah, I know there are different player types and all of that. If all you want to do is build up characters, though, you don't need the added complication of doing it via playing the game - you can do it at home, alone, with nothing but a pen, paper, dice, the rulebooks, and your imagination. In this case, playing the actual game only gets in the way of what the player wants, in that it presents a possiblity for his creation to be killed off. The DM can eliminate that possibility by fudging rolls or by always throwing softballs. But at that point, you might as well toss out D&D's conflict resolution mechanics, describe to the DM what your character does, and let him adjucate what happens on his own without any randomness getting in the way. The end result is largely the same either way.

Three factors to consider:

- Roleplaying is a social pursuit. You do it with people, not by yourself (unless it's some weird kind of roleplaying that I will be very disgusted by, as soon as I get out of my bunk). The fun is in creating something together, and having your character interact with the other PCs and NPCs.

- Suspension of disbelief is a strange thing. It may be too much for SoD if you just get given stuff, if you're using a framework which assumes you have to fight for it. Besides which, there may be an implicit contract between DM and player(s): don't take the world for granted, and you won't die. That sometimes may involve a ritual (charade, if you like) of rolling the dice, but not always looking at the results. As the saying goes, pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.

- Sometimes, the frilly gizmos like BAB, HD, levels, classes and whatnot ARE what you're trying to build. It's like GURPS Vehicles. Noone is likely ever to use half the things built using that book, but people build them anyway. It's just part of what goes into the shared experience.

 

[ptolemy18]

I recently finished playing in a five-year-long weekly campaign where we went from an average party level of 1 to about 14-15. By the end of the campaign, there were no continuing characters from the beginning, but most people's characters lasted about a year or two.

Personally, as a player, I don't mind a campaign where death is a serious risk. As long as the DM has a good sense of game balance and doesn't overdo it and have to pull strings to save the characters (as several people pointed out), it's fine.

Frankly, I often get tired of old characters and want to start a new one, so in these cases, death is welcome. (Of course, I don't do SUICIDAL things... I like having my old characters live as long as they can... but the fun of creating a new character -- with new ideas, new classes and races from new supplements, etc. -- goes a long way to make up for dying.)

What I *don't* like, most of the time, is having my characters Raised from the dead and continuing with them. Having to regain a lost level SUCKS!!! It's like having to redo homework!!! In 9 out of 10 cases, I'd rather play a completely new character than get Raised and lose a level.

Jason

 

[ptolemy18]

In 9 out of 10 cases, I'd rather play a completely new character than get Raised and lose a level.

...on the other hand, being Reincarnated as some weird creature (particularly using the 3.0 reincarnation tables) can be very fun.

Jason

 

[LazerPointer]

When your DM states he wants to kill PCs, that's a little hint that you'll be making up a lot of characters.

Who said there's no risk? Not me. Last time I checked you lose a level when raise dead is cast. Not to mention the challenges that a good DM can devise just to receive the spell.

I already talked about the 'wanna kill PC's" line, and I agree that DMing for the purpose of killing your friends characters as often as possible is dumb; I wouldn't want to play in a game like that, I wouldn't want to DM a game like that. I will enjoy the game more, though, if I am allowed to present the PC's with real risk, instead of using +5 kid gloves.

 

[Fenes]

Reward with no risk isn't very rewarding.

I disagree. A reward for work/effort is rewarding, even if there is no risk. If you spend time fleshing out a character, time contributing to the campaign, making it fun for all, then why should that not be rewarded, even if you don't risk your character?

I said it before in numerous discussions, not everyone needs the fear of PC death. Myself, I don't play D&D to fear for my character, I am perfectly fine not to metagame and play a fearless character.

As a DM, I offer players a warning if something is suicidal, and it is up to them if they continue. However, if they stay true to their characters I won't kill the characters, no matter what. If there is a paladin who will attack undead on sight, and I accept that character, then it would not be right for me to place the character in a situation where he had to retreatfrom /not fight an undead to survive.

After all, taking characters prisoners, robbing them of their stuff, enslaving them, ruining their plans, killing dear NPCs... the game has so many more options to add consequences than death. And so many styles to choose from.

Some people prefer a game where only the smart players - not characters, players - using all kind of tactics and tricks and caution survive. I am not among them. I prefer a game where you can be the foolhardy movie-like hero ending up in hot water each session, the stupid barbarian, the noble knight, all without having those characters either die off, or end up another variant of "seasoned, cautious veteran".