D&D 5E Variant 5e?

[Charlaquin]

Making a choice that "saves" your PC ought to result in consequences. Maybe your heroic PC doesn't save the village, resulting in a love interest or business partner being killed or kidnapped. Choosing to heal up to full hp results in the rival NPC party beating them to an objective or the BBEG's minions getting closer to their goal.

Right, and all of those things suck, but when the alternative is you character dying, most players are going to grit their teeth and accept the consequences. Occasional heroic sacrifices happen, but for the most part they’re an exception. 99% of the time, “give up on saving the village or die” isn’t actually a difficult decision, it’s just an awful one. No one wants to give up on saving the village, but everyone wants to die even less. To make it a difficult decision, it should be setback vs. other setback instead of setback vs. death.

 

[Tony Vargas]

that doesn’t seem to be the opinion of the people on the PF2e forums, they see the increased swingyness of the that edition as an asset.

May be why they're playing PF2 & we're playing D&D?

Then your DM is doing it wrong... You have to maintain the certainty of death for stupid play and the possibility of death for the other 10% of the time

That sounds even /more/ like players should choose to 'save' the PCs (maximize their chance of success going into any challenge, since they all might be deadly), over cross some finish line expeditiously at great risk (which could be punished with certain death, afterall).

 

[3catcircus]

Right, and all of those things suck, but when the alternative is you character dying, most players are going to grit their teeth and accept the consequences. Occasional heroic sacrifices happen, but for the most part they’re an exception. 99% of the time, “give up on saving the village or die” isn’t actually a difficult decision, it’s just an awful one. No one wants to give up on saving the village, but everyone wants to die even less. To make it a difficult decision, it should be setback vs. other setback instead of setback vs. death.

And this is where I think lack of player imagination amongst younger players expecting to "reload their save" comes into play. Back in ye oldey times, if we weren't playing it as ruthless mercenaries, we'd save the village at the cost of the PC. A good DM would turn a death into an opportunity for more social encounters to figure out a way to bring the PC back. Heading into the planes to get the soul back, having the local temple raise dead in exchange for preventing the Jun Horde from destroying it along with the rest of the town, saving the local hedge wizard enslaved by the BBEGs minions so he can teleport you to the valley of fire to pick the berries of life, whatever...

 

[Charlaquin]

And this is where I think lack of player imagination amongst younger players expecting to "reload their save" comes into play. Back in ye oldey times, if we weren't playing it as ruthless mercenaries, we'd save the village at the cost of the PC. A good DM would turn a death into an opportunity for more social encounters to figure out a way to bring the PC back. Heading into the planes to get the soul back, having the local temple raise dead in exchange for preventing the Jun Horde from destroying it along with the rest of the town, saving the local hedge wizard enslaved by the BBEGs minions so he can teleport you to the valley of fire to pick the berries of life, whatever...

Ok, that’s pretty cool. But again, what you’re describing doesn’t sound like increased difficulty. The game isn’t actually harder, you just have a higher expected PC casualty rate, hand-in-hand with an expectation that resurrection be pretty readily accessible, albeit with the requirement of a sidequest. That’s a fun and valid way to play, it just isn’t the goal the OP stated.

 

[3catcircus]

That sounds even /more/ like players should choose to 'save' the PCs (maximize their chance of success going into any challenge, since they all might be deadly), over cross some finish line expeditiously at great risk (which could be punished with certain death, afterall).

Every challenge can be deadly, if your party is stupid (or even not stupid). Players need to be allowed to fail. They need to understand the appropriate response to having half the team go down in the first 2 rounds is to drag their bodies with them as they run away, not "This DM is unfair. Why did he put our 1st level party up against a tribe of hill giants" in response to the party deciding to kick in the door of the giant's fortress. 3e+ makes the tragic mistake of encouraging a play style that doesn't allow success after failure.

 

[3catcircus]

Ok, that’s pretty cool. But again, what you’re describing doesn’t sound like increased difficulty. The game isn’t actually harder, you just have a higher expected PC casualty rate, hand-in-hand with an expectation that resurrection be pretty readily accessible, albeit with the requirement of a sidequest. That’s a fun and valid way to play, it just isn’t the goal the OP stated.

Oh, I didn't say ressurection would be really available. You might get stuck with a raise dead without the regeneration of missing limbs (leading to having to trudge to the big city to seek out services), or get reincarnated as a kobold.

Players also tended to have a posse of hirelings and henchman. It wasn't uncommon for an AD&D party to be 6, 8, 10 strong.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Every challenge can be deadly, if your party is stupid (or even not stupid). Players need to be allowed to fail. They need to understand the appropriate response to having half the team go down in the first 2 rounds is to drag their bodies with them as they run away

...do you honestly expect they'd get away from pursuers while dragging their downed comrades?

Why did he put our 1st level party up against a tribe of hill giants"

Especially if said pursuers move 40 and throw rocks 240'?

in response to the party deciding to kick in the door of the giant's fortress.

Wait, you could kick in the door of a giant's fortress at first level?

It's, not like, a 40' high door, two feet thick or something?

Sorry. Just, sounded funny.

 

[dave2008]

Since I'm already disinclined to play a Berserker in a regular game of 5e without changes to the Berserker I'd be very disinclined to play one here.

Not that that matters much as it's just one subclass.

Yep, I am not really thinking about tweaks to specific class, but general game rules.

 

[dave2008]

Ok, that’s pretty cool. But again, what you’re describing doesn’t sound like increased difficulty. The game isn’t actually harder, you just have a higher expected PC casualty rate, hand-in-hand with an expectation that resurrection be pretty readily accessible, albeit with the requirement of a sidequest. That’s a fun and valid way to play, it just isn’t the goal the OP stated.

I think it depends on your definition of harder. What I am presenting meet my and my players definitions of harder (harder = monsters are harder to kill and for us to live doing so). What is your definition of harder. Are you think harder for players or harder for characters?

 

[Charlaquin]

Oh, I didn't say ressurection would be really available. You might get stuck with a raise dead without the regeneration of missing limbs (leading to having to trudge to the big city to seek out services), or get reincarnated as a kobold.

Players also tended to have a posse of hirelings and henchman. It wasn't uncommon for an AD&D party to be 6, 8, 10 strong.

My point though is that what you’re describing isn’t really increased difficulty, it’s just a different set of setting assumptions. Which again, sounds pretty cool, it just doesn’t meet Dave2008’s stated goal.