Quote from: GeekyBugle on March 31, 2023, 11:53:55 AM

Quote from: Festus on March 31, 2023, 10:50:59 AM

Quote from: GeekyBugle on March 31, 2023, 01:08:58 AM

Quote from: Festus on March 31, 2023, 12:55:36 AM


So what are you going to do about it? Get Congress to pass a law mandating 20% more character death? Form a hit squad to hunt down soft DMs? Or just stoke each other's outrage in a circle jerk echo chamber?

I tried 5e for awhile and ditched it because I wanted a game with more risk. No one is going to tell me how I should play.

But here's the thing: if no one gets to tell me how to play, then I don't get to tell someone else how they should play. That's how freedom works.

That's a great strawman you built there, are you sure you can defeat it alone or need help from a thousand more enlightened centrists?

Ok, so now what? You drew a comparison to "this shit ... creeping in" and safety tools where people said it wasn't a problem. To me that implies some kind of forewarned is forearmed attitude, a "we must learn from the past" warning. But nobody here seems to need the warning. Consensus seems to be no one has time for this hand-wringing over character death BS.

If there's no call to action, nothing to be done, then what's the point?

LOL, somehow "Emperor" Festus thinks he can dictate what we do or talk about depending if he thinks it`s a productive use of our time.

Dude, this is the internet.

LOL So there is no point. Hey, that's fair enough! I'll see myself out.

Cheers!

Quote from: Festus on March 31, 2023, 12:00:17 PMLOL So there is no point. Hey, that's fair enough! I'll see myself out.

Cheers!

I find some of the arguments weird because my experience is that I've had fun playing lots of Call of Cthulhu and some other high lethality games, but I also have had fun playing Champions and Buffy and other low-lethality or no-lethality games.

Quote from: tenbones on March 30, 2023, 06:05:02 PM
No death in TTRPG's means there are no stakes that matter. The whole point of playing a RPG is to play another person - *even* if you model it after yourself.

Ideally you're going to make changes for the purposes of exploring the boots of another perspective somewhat adjacent to your own. Or if you got the chops, you go full out. But without Death as a possibility - I'm not sure how this even happens, when you lose in boardgames, it's the same effect, you're OUT of the game.

Having played several games where death isn't on the table, I'm happy to answer questions about them. I'm not sure exactly what to say, though. In my experience, almost everything works exactly the same. The PCs have goals and try to achieve them. Sometimes they win, sometimes they fail.

In the rare case when a PC would die, instead of stepping out to create a new character, the player steps aside and helps figure out what an appropriate explanation would be for why they don't die - and what the consequences should be. Sometimes the player will stay in the action by taking over an NPC while their PC is out. (That's a practice I've often done in many situations aside from character death - like when a PC is hospitalized or has some obligation.)

I'm confused by the board game comment, because in every RPG that I've played, killing a PC doesn't mean that the player is out of the campaign. They just create a new PC and rejoin. This can have its own issues in terms of game play. I've noticed in Call of Cthulhu that new PCs can become cannon fodder. The whole group is protective of the few experienced PCs who have somehow kept their sanity, but new PCs are cheap and expendable - so there's a tendency to use new PCs to scout and test what is dangerous. This makes sense for a tactical commander of the group, but it makes the horror less effective. In general, I find the threat of death doesn't make for effective horror in RPGs.

Quote from: Krazz on March 30, 2023, 05:28:05 PM

Quote from: jhkim on March 29, 2023, 07:54:26 PM
I agree that "Plot Twist" isn't necessarily sufficient to prevent PC death, but "Back from the Dead" is. It even explicitly says that even if the player doesn't have enough Drama Points, that they can go into debt and pay the Drama Points back later.

I can't imagine that players who get upset at dying will be much happier with their PC sitting out the whole season and having them fall behind in experience.

In my experience, players have a much easier time having their PC be off-screen for a few sessions than to having their PC permanently dead.

Quote from: JackFS4 on March 31, 2023, 10:12:38 AM
Kids these days...

There are games that are lethal.  I've died many times pushing my luck on a 6th tour in the hopes of mustering out with a Imperial Scout Ship benefit (Traveller). DCC and MCC funnels are a blast.  Alien and Call of Cthulhu are usually a game of attrition to see which PC last the longest (or pulls a Ripley and escapes alone).  Paranoia isn't fun unless you mulch yourself at least twice in the service of Friend Computer (who is all knowing and I love very much).

Dying can be wildly entertaining.

Yep I agree.

I think a character dying in the lie of duty, dying as a hero while sad is also really cool. 

Yeah my character died, but he died a hero.  That's awesome to me and makes me remember them more fondly.

Death is short hand for "Loss condition that bites."  It need not be death but it does need bite.  As opposed to loss conditions that don't do anything much or even pretend loss conditions where the player has the character get all upset, but nothing substantial occurred.  It's common for loss conditions to be worse than death, at least to some players. 

I haven't personally seen many people freak out about real loss (death or otherwise), but I have seen it a few times (usually in a public place, in a table next to mine), and heard players complain about it happening in another game.  Heck, I've heard players freaking about it when it didn't even happen in their game, but they were afraid that it would.  Since my games would not be attractive to such players, I don't even get to the point of booting them over such antics. 

Calling out death is just a proxy for what they really mean, which is they don't want to ever feel the bite of the consequences of their own actions.  If they said it that way, they'd come across even more entitled and stupid, which is why most of them sense that it is a bad tack.

I even get it on one level:  Yeah, sometimes it's fun to turn the game onto easy mode, break out the cheat codes, and do some mindless zombie killing.  I prefer that kind of thing occasionally in video games where I don't have to bother other people with the mindless play, but if several mindless people get together, they aren't hurting anything by doing it in a group.  What pushes it over the edge is the angst and the drama all out of proportion to what is happening. 

There's also the dynamic where most players I've seen in games without serious loss conditions get lazy.  You need the threat of loss to really engage in play. Or at least many players do.  It's a lagging indicator.  One near death is sometimes enough to get the players to pay attention again.  You might even get several months of good play out of it.  Eventually, if there is no perceived chance of real loss, the laziness sets in again, as a slow rot.

Sometimes I think that the hobby would be better served if introductions for most beginners were real meat-grinders with disposable pre-gens.  Let every new player lose a few characters quick, then spend some time in game where it takes you an hour to make your character and death isn't likely.  The tree of roleplaying must be occasionally watered with the blood of red shirts--or something like that.

Quote from: Steven Mitchell on March 31, 2023, 04:16:05 PM
Death is short hand for "Loss condition that bites."  It need not be death but it does need bite.  As opposed to loss conditions that don't do anything much or even pretend loss conditions where the player has the character get all upset, but nothing substantial occurred.  It's common for loss conditions to be worse than death, at least to some players.

Agree. While death makes sense in many circumstances, a lot of people seem to have the expectation that doing anything at all foolhardy is supposed to earn you a character death in D&D. If you're trying to play heroic fantasy and the heroes try to do heroic stuff, but fail due to bad rolls or some other thing -- And the only tool you're using as a DM is, "You die" then you're probably not really going to get much of the style of game you wanted.

Quote from: Zelen on March 31, 2023, 10:47:53 PM

Quote from: Steven Mitchell on March 31, 2023, 04:16:05 PM
Death is short hand for "Loss condition that bites."  It need not be death but it does need bite.  As opposed to loss conditions that don't do anything much or even pretend loss conditions where the player has the character get all upset, but nothing substantial occurred.  It's common for loss conditions to be worse than death, at least to some players.

Agree. While death makes sense in many circumstances, a lot of people seem to have the expectation that doing anything at all foolhardy is supposed to earn you a character death in D&D. If you're trying to play heroic fantasy and the heroes try to do heroic stuff, but fail due to bad rolls or some other thing -- And the only tool you're using as a DM is, "You die" then you're probably not really going to get much of the style of game you wanted.

I mentioned it previously, but Arcanis actually had some pretty good alternatives on the "consequences that bite"... beaten unconscious and robbed of all weapons, armor and valuables... sold into slavery (again losing all goods, but also needing to escape)... being magically branded on the forehead for heresy (in a VERY religious setting)... losing all sorts of favors owed because you failed to rescue someone in time... etc.

Death was on the table too, it just wasn't the ONLY option on the table.

Quote from: Steven Mitchell on March 31, 2023, 04:16:05 PM
Calling out death is just a proxy for what they really mean, which is they don't want to ever feel the bite of the consequences of their own actions.  If they said it that way, they'd come across even more entitled and stupid, which is why most of them sense that it is a bad tack.

I even get it on one level:  Yeah, sometimes it's fun to turn the game onto easy mode, break out the cheat codes, and do some mindless zombie killing.  I prefer that kind of thing occasionally in video games where I don't have to bother other people with the mindless play, but if several mindless people get together, they aren't hurting anything by doing it in a group.  What pushes it over the edge is the angst and the drama all out of proportion to what is happening. 

There's also the dynamic where most players I've seen in games without serious loss conditions get lazy.  You need the threat of loss to really engage in play.

First of all, I don't think it's bad to be lazy. As I see it, there's nothing wrong with easy play where you kick back, enjoy some beers, good company, and a fun adventure. It's just like going out with your friends and hitting a ball around, instead of playing for stakes.

I'm not sure this is even correlated to character death. I've had one-shot Call of Cthulhu and D&D games where we played this way including character death. We just joked and messed around, and when a character died, we just shrugged and rolled up a new one. The supposed serious consequences of character death is illusory.

Quote from: Steven Mitchell on March 31, 2023, 04:16:05 PM
Sometimes I think that the hobby would be better served if introductions for most beginners were real meat-grinders with disposable pre-gens.  Let every new player lose a few characters quick, then spend some time in game where it takes you an hour to make your character and death isn't likely.  The tree of roleplaying must be occasionally watered with the blood of red shirts--or something like that.

Yeah. Ideally, beginners should try a variety of different games - like a meat-grinder on the one hand, and a no-death game on the other. Then they can see what they like.

Quote from: Chris24601 on April 01, 2023, 12:55:50 AM
Death was on the table too, it just wasn't the ONLY option on the table.

  One of the ironies is that through removing things like level loss, permanent destruction of magic items, etc., WotC has pushed the game towards 'death as the only consequence.'

Quote from: jhkim on April 01, 2023, 01:26:46 AM
I'm not sure this is even correlated to character death. I've had one-shot Call of Cthulhu and D&D games where we played this way including character death. We just joked and messed around, and when a character died, we just shrugged and rolled up a new one. The supposed serious consequences of character death is illusory.

For some players, yes. For other players, definitely not.  It's running about 50/50 in my experience, but I'll grant that's a skewed, if sizable sample.  Nor is this correlation limited to character death or other serious consequences.  Some players respond much more strongly to in-game carrots and sticks than others.  There are player who, if you tell them their characters are epic heroes, will act like in game, despite all mechanical or campaign event evidence to the contrary.  In other words, they are fully bought in on the premise of the game even when it actively works against them.  There are player who, no matter what you tell them about the premise, will always take the "physics" and events into account, even to the point of going against the premise if that's where it takes them.  And of course, lots of players fall somewhere in the middle of that, but few of those are directly in the middle.

Also, "consequences that bite" are consequences that are serious consequences to the player who feels them, and to a lesser extent, the other players at the table.  Death is usually a serious consequence.  So it's a good stand in.  But that's part of my point, it's not death per se that mitigates the lazy player syndrome when it is possible, but the bite.  If you premise the game such that no one cares if their characters live or die, then death by definition isn't serious for that game.  That doesn't change the fact that it is in other contexts.

I sometimes run Cartoon Action Hour, which emulates Saturday morning cartoon shows from the 80's. As a result, death, long term injury, and dire consequences are almost completely non-existent.

When running it for some new players, one of them had basically an existential crisis at the concept of a game with no death. I had to spend a lllootttt of time helping him get his brain aligned to it. But now he loves it, and goes with the flow, because the sessions have shown him the liberating freedom of just having fun.

CaH is a palate cleanser for me, because I often run things like Dark Heresy and Call Of Cthulhu, which are very dark and dangerous. IMO players benefit from having different 'gears' they can switch to for games, much like a car uses different gears on flat land or a hill.

Quote from: Armchair Gamer on April 01, 2023, 09:43:01 AM

Quote from: Chris24601 on April 01, 2023, 12:55:50 AM
Death was on the table too, it just wasn't the ONLY option on the table.

  One of the ironies is that through removing things like level loss, permanent destruction of magic items, etc., WotC has pushed the game towards 'death as the only consequence.'

Well you see, the exact same audience that complains about character death use the exact same "arguments" against those other things too.

They want their participation trophy damnit!

Quote from: GeekyBugle on March 29, 2023, 12:22:48 PM

Quote from: Omega on March 29, 2023, 08:42:54 AM
Theres still a good share of players ok with a PC death.
But these fringe nuts have been at it a while now.
Theres also been a resurgance of the old complaint of "Theres more combat rules than talking rules! I  can NEVER talk to an NPC everrrrrrr! waaaah!"

When did we in the west switch from : If it's not forbiden by the rules it's allowed to "If the rules don't say I can do it then I can't!

Oh those sorts are all over 5e when it suits them.
Want to wade through a pool of lava? Sure! 5e allows that!
Fall from orbit? Sure! 5e allows it!

Fly into a wall and take no damage? Sure! 5e doesnt say theres any crash into stuff damage!
Swim miles under the ocean unprotected and take no harm? Sure! 5e doesnt say theres any depth pressure!

Always when it suits them

Quote from: Armchair Gamer on April 01, 2023, 09:43:01 AM

Quote from: Chris24601 on April 01, 2023, 12:55:50 AM
Death was on the table too, it just wasn't the ONLY option on the table.

  One of the ironies is that through removing things like level loss, permanent destruction of magic items, etc., WotC has pushed the game towards 'death as the only consequence.'

Well, I do consider level loss a poor mechanic for more mechanically complex systems where the effects of losing a level requires more than just subtracting some hit points and consulting a different line on the attack matrix. I think 3e did fairly well with its negative levels that imposed penalties and deferred the level loss until essentially the end of a session (at least if you were doing a dungeon crawl).

The other thing is, back in the day with ongoing campaigns as originally intended to be played (including replacement characters starting back at level 1), being set back a few levels wasn't quite as onerous as it would be in the modern "adventure path" environment where sidequests to regain levels and "catch up" aren't a presumed part of the campaign.

Point being, in old school play, level loss (provided you didn't die from it) wasn't quite as onerous or permanent (in the sense of forever being behind the rest of the party) as it became in 3e, which I suspect is why it was removed from subsequent editions and replaced with "suffer X penalties for Y period of time" as that was the practical effect of the loss in old school campaign play... just expressed differently.

Similarly, high level 3e often turned into rocket tag of which side could get off a Mordenkeinen's disjunction first... I think the players would have preferred death (it would have been quick and anything short of a TPK could be handled through resurrection spells) to the time they lost over three million gp worth of magic items to a single disjunction spell.

Similarly, I know many a player more than willing to rush in against orcs and ogres who utterly balked at the prospect of facing a Rust Monster.

I have "Afflictions" in my system that serve a similar purpose to level loss (subcategories of curses, diseases and injuries) in terms of lasting hindrances that can be afflicted upon the party by various means and don't go away just by sleeping for a night (indeed injury and disease afflictions can often get worse if untreated).

Another thing that I find useful in terms of stakes is to encourage the party to make use of hirelings and henchmen. Then I make sure to roleplay them so they aren't just random mooks. When you're a month out from civilization and relying on the capabilities of your support personnel for various tasks gets killed, it can up the stakes (one group lost both their hireling hunters and now needed to devote personal time and effort to hunt for game themselves or the expedition would potentially starve).

That was another thing later editions lost. The PCs became islands with no outside attachments rather than the anchors of a larger group where losing a henchman or part of your mercenary force represented a significant loss of time and resources and capabilities.

So, yes, I tend to agree; the more modern "PCs are an island on an adventure path" style does tend to remove many of the potential "consequences with bite" save death... and even that often gets muted because those adventure paths often lack good on-ramps for replacement PCs (who need to pretty much be the same level as the PC being replaced so much of the sting is gone).

It's basically a limitation of the direction chosen for official D&D material, so much so that if a new edition simply leaned into the "your PC is your avatar in this world" and introduced something like "respawn points" into the setting where PC avatars just appeared (minus any progress since they last visited a respawn point) at when their HP dropped to 0, I would actually find such a system refreshing in its honesty.

Level loss is the Devil. Better to sit your players in a chair with a hole cut out, and bash their genitals, like in Casino Royale.

"AAIIIIEEEE! OOOOOWWWWW! Thanks again for not doing Level Loss, AAAGGHHHH!"