Quote from: dragoner;788916So then what is the number of "raining anvils and demons teleporting into the outhouse"?

Depends on where you visit & whose attention you caught. Accidental tourists may end up with accidents.

Quote from: Opaopajr;788958Yeah, I'm not about frequency. Which would also go against my view on player agency, too. There's no "allotted mortal peril counters per session." I just don't pull my punches if you deliberately bite off more than you can chew — and deliberate includes blithely wandering about in ignorance.

Rob Kuntz' "Dark Chateau," a module designed for first level characters.

The chateau is actually a small chateau. A neglected but still useable road leads to it from a main road.

About thirty yards from the chateau, a small shed sits next to the road. It is in such a position that it is visible for a hundred yards or so as you come up the road.

Goblins have moved into the area, and the PCs are told this.

Several goblins are in the shed. They have removed a few planks to make arrow slits, and they are equipped with bows and are watching down the road.

If the PCs, having been told goblins are in the area, go dorking up the road with their thumbs up their asses, they will be attacked by the goblin archers by surprise. The goblins will get two rounds of fire before the PCs can react, and the shed gives 90% hard cover against normal missile fire. It is not impossible that this will result in a TPK.

My players said "It's stupid to go up the road, they'll be waiting for us." By moving slowly and quietly through the surrounding area they avoided the ambush. In point of fact, they worked around to the back of the shed, which the module quite distinctly says is open -- no wall at all.

The players, who also had bows, were able to open fire on the goblins by surprise, devistating them with arrow fire.

If they had indeed gone dorking up the road as above, I would have allowed the arrows to fall as they may.

I played In Nomine SJG, so dorking around with any and every ol' person in a human suit without reserve is asking for trouble. Actually, if you really piss the wrong people off, by then so is mere sleeping, flowers, media, animals, inanimate objects, etc... Discretion and intel are the words of the day, folks, as they were yesterday, and will be tomorrow!

Stay safe, players!

Quote from: Old Geezer;788961If the PCs, having been told goblins are in the area, go dorking up the road with their thumbs up their asses, they will be attacked by the goblin archers by surprise. The goblins will get two rounds of fire before the PCs can react, and the shed gives 90% hard cover against normal missile fire. It is not impossible that this will result in a TPK.

...

If they had indeed gone dorking up the road as above, I would have allowed the arrows to fall as they may.

Would you have let the arrows fall as they ay if the players had not been told goblins were in the area?

That's question is very relevant to thread topic. In a true open sandbox simulation of a world circumstances the PCs will possibly even most likely find themselves in deadly situations through bad luck, misinformation or circumstances otherwise beyond their control. How much the GM is willing to shield them from those situation (or eliminate them entirely) is part of script immunity.

Are the PCs destined to never have that sort of thing happen? For example, If, clueless,  the dork on up the road the goblin watch is sleeping on duty, fighting or otherwise conveniently distracted, the first volley of arrows misses or something else swings their way allowing more of a chance to escape or eliminating the ambush or do the chips fall were they may because as someone said upthread "Sometimes the first sign you're in a minefield is your lead tank exploding."

I tend to try to make sure that the campaign's lethality is often based on Player choice. As in, if they're in a bad position to be ambushed, I don't play it up as a Gotcha! I always try to give some clue or hint that danger is possible.

On the other hand, I don't have every wandering monster encounter played up like a video game. All creatures have some motivation that can be dealt with in some way other than straight combat.

For example, in the Lost Mine of Phandelver, the party had a nighttime encounter with an Owlbear. Since I was 3 players short, I gave the creature nearly the minimum HP it could have, explaining it as having been wounded previously from meeting up with the very same Cyclops that the party had cleverly evaded earlier that day. It's an animal driven by hunger, so when the party noticed it's approach and hid nearby, the animal went straight for their rations. It was a perfect set-up for the players to ambush a creature that otherwise could've killed them.

The point is that I desire lethality in the game, but not from "GOTCHA!" encounters, which are kind of lame if there's no set-up whatsoever.

The system does determine a lot of this, to be sure. Until the last few years, I used to weigh in on the side of the players. I still want them to feel heroic and buh-DAHS! (badass), but have been a "combat rolls in the open" GM for about 6 years now. Last session, this led to a player who had JUST brought in a new PC and JUST brought in a new, painted mini, to get set upon by a pair of dagger wielding goblins in what could best be described as a poor tactical position. He got hit twice, once with a crit. Double damage on one hit (thanks to crit cards we all agreed to use), and the other I maxed the d4 roll. Also maxed the 2d4 double damage -- 12 points of evisceration and his 1st level Ranger with 8 hp's hit the dirt.  New PC time for this player, again (this makes 3 in 3 sessions).

Quote from: Opaopajr;788960Depends on where you visit & whose attention you caught. Accidental tourists may end up with accidents.

A lot of this plays back into information given, and what seems interesting to do, as well as assumption about the entire world. The point is that you as the GM, can kill the players at any time; such as I don't usually tactically wargame players, because I would usually win.

Definitely "How Lethal" and "Frequency of Lethality" are connected, because one would lead to another, I don't see how they could be separated, logically.

Quote from: jadrax;788970Would you have let the arrows fall as they ay if the players had not been told goblins were in the area?

Quite possibly.  However, before the ambush I would have described what they saw.  Though I would not have said "That small shed would be a perfect place for an ambush," if someone had asked "Do I (the pc) think that small shed would be a great place for an ambush" I would have answered "You think it would be a GREAT place for an ambush".  I am the eyes of the players, if I do not tell them what they see I am cheating.  But I will not think for them.

But I would NOT have said "you walk down the road, arrows fall, everyone dies".

It's a little different with a tank... most German tanks could nail a Sherman from 1500 to 2000 yards from concealment.  The odds of your lead tank simply exploding and you never see the firer is a possibility.

Quote from: Old Geezer;788951What is "losing?"

Games are about decisions.  "Losing" is when you MAKE A BAD DECISION.  In a RPG, I differentiate between the player and the PC.  For the player, the goal is to have adventures.  For the PC the goal may be to find a man, get married, buy an inn, and start a family, but then six orcs with crossbows enter the room.

The character goals are thwarted, but the player goal -- to have adventures -- is achieved.

QuoteThere has to be a way for the PLAYER to lose.  "I get to have even more adventures with that character" is not losing.  "My bad decision got that character killed" is losing.  There may be other modes of losing, but to be losing, it CANNOT ADD FUN TO THE GAME.  Losing MUST by its very ontological nature be less fun than winning, or it is not losing.

I do not agree that such a psychological state is necessary. Simply having an objective that may or may not be accomplished is sufficient.

QuoteLosing has to be an end condition that you wish to avoid.

But only because that is the nature of the game. I do not need rending of garments and wailing. Suit yourself, but how the hell are you going to make your rule work on evetyone? Kill players, not just characters? Not my idea of fun.

QuoteNote that in an RPG, losing does not equal elimination from the campaign.

But short of that, some people may not suffer the unhappiness you claim is necessary!

QuoteThis is where it differs from other wargames campaigns, for instance the first WW2 campaign I was ever in where I was told "If you lose all your tanks, you are out."

Quote from: dragoner;788995Definitely "How Lethal" and "Frequency of Lethality" are connected, because one would lead to another, I don't see how they could be separated, logically.

In the real world bullets/knives/cars have a solid chance of killing you if you come up against them. The frequency of lethality isn't connected to how much damage they do... it's connected to whether I visit certain neighborhoods, how I behave there... whether or not I run out into traffic. There are lots of ways I can modify my behavior to lower the 'frequency of lethality' without having to redesign guns to be less deadly... or pave over the dangerous places and put up Disney stores.

Quote from: Simlasa;789052There are lots of ways I can modify my behavior to lower the 'frequency of lethality' ...

Then if modified, it would be inherently less lethal, because less would die. What is the measure of lethality except the death toll? If one hundred people went racing, and 5 died; and another hundred played baseball and no one died, the assumption based upon the evidence would be that racing is more lethal.

Quote from: dragoner;789053Then if modified, it would be inherently less lethal, because less would die. What is the measure of lethality except the death toll?

You've decided to define 'lethality' your own way. Have at it but don't expect me to go along.
A gun is a 'lethal weapon' whether you use it to kill someone or not.
Similarly, 'lethality' is the fact that if you DO get hit by the falling anvil you can pretty much expect to die. Not have a million hit points so you can shrug it off or a GM who will fudge the roll and say it missed you by a hair.
If the Players decide against going out into the anvil-storm that doesn't lower the inherent lethality of the setting... all the dangers are still out there and they're still dangerous.

Quote from: Simlasa;789060If the Players decide against going out into the anvil-storm that doesn't lower the inherent lethality of the setting... all the dangers are still out there and they're still dangerous.

I am now going to add "anvil storm" as a type of weather in my campaign.

The death toll is nice because it's measurable, although there are plenty of interesting things that are hard to measure.

One qualitative measure would be the amount of effort the players need to put into avoiding death.