Quote from: fuseboy;789065One qualitative measure would be the amount of effort the players need to put into avoiding death.

While doing what? Sitting in an inn flirting with barmaids? Going into old ruins with nothing but a pointy stick? Making fun of that old guy in the funny robes?

Quote from: Simlasa;789060You've decided to define 'lethality' your own way. Have at it but don't expect me to go along.

Reading the opening post as well as the intellect devourer thread, I've just used the most simple definition for campaign lethality there is. It is not you, but the whole "one" thing I question, defining that it looks to be the raining anvil thing.

Quote from: fuseboy;789065The death toll is nice because it's measurable, although there are plenty of interesting things that are hard to measure.

True, always start with what you know; figuring a metric for the "lethality potential" would be interesting to see the result, but I don't see how one would make a concrete definition.

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

Asking the GM's or players? One of the essential qualities of adventurers would be being inured to danger, imo.

Quote from: Old Geezer;789063I am now going to add "anvil storm" as a type of weather in my campaign.

Isn't it just delicious? That and the outhouse-haunting demons. Best of all, they're edition-agnostic.

Quote from: Simlasa;789072While doing what? Sitting in an inn flirting with barmaids? Going into old ruins with nothing but a pointy stick? Making fun of that old guy in the funny robes?

While doing whatever they actually did. Play the session/scenario/campaign, then ask the players to what extent the threat of death shaped their choices.

Just musing.. it occurs to me that fatalities and death-avoidance don't always go hand in hand.  You could play Tomb of Horrors with a gleeful acceptance of untimely death, and laugh when it happens.

Quote from: dragoner;789076Asking the GM's or players? One of the essential qualities of adventurers would be being inured to danger, imo.

Players.  (I'm not proposing we ask if their characters were afraid, though you could do that too.)

Quote from: Vargold;789077Isn't it just delicious? That and the outhouse-haunting demons. Best of all, they're edition-agnostic.

Have you read Terry Pratchett's "The Truth"?  Dibbler talks about having the proper "Fang Shooey" in the bathroom to make sure the Dragon of Unhappiness doesn't come out of the toilet and fly up your bottom.

Quote from: Vargold;789077Isn't it just delicious? That and the outhouse-haunting demons. Best of all, they're edition-agnostic.

Didn't Arduin have Shit Demons?... somewhere in that glorious pile of chaos.

I don't see the need to be quantitative about 'lethality'... and 'death toll' is just going to tell you how many died, not the how and why... was it the GM, the Players, the rules, the setting?
If anything it would be some combination of the damage of some average weapon vs. average HP of a human vs. availability of 'healing' or 'rez' vs. GM's willingness to not pull punches.

Quote from: dragoner;788995A 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.

Yes, info given matters. But that does not necessarily deal with my creation of lethal frequency. Just because I run things at a "1" does not mean I drop such things upon the players when they are 'safe'. If you have made no real enemies and are off to the local grocer, you will likely live.

They're separated by how much the player chooses to aggressively explore — and with how much information. That's your dial, your free-will, not mine. You have access to me, as GM, to ask how much your character would know of the world. But you are free to explore in total ignorance as well.

Choose to plane-hop any ol' magical gate willy nilly, not my decision. Choose to go spelunking any ol' hole willy nilly, not my decision. Choose to travel blind to the next land without guidance willy nilly, not my decision. Choose to bring cheesecake to the Sunday potluck willy nilly, not my decision. And yet we know which of these things has a lower chance of mortality, on average.

Lethality Frequency is not solely within my power. It ends soon after I create that space, and those actors. I design the world; I watch you make decisions. You are free to pursue adventure, or the knowledge to make better informed decisions about said adventure.

You are free to bite off more than you can chew, as often as you like, even with your eyes closed. I am like the Giving Tree GM. I respect your life choices.

My current group is realizing the lethality of 5th ed and these last two sessions they succeeded in bluffing through 90% of the enemy camp and dungeon.

So on one side you have a very lethal combat and on the other you have the players trying to avoid it like the plague. And succeeding mostly so far. And getting absurdly lucky when it failed. And still nearly lost two members.

Quote from: Omega;789128My current group is realizing the lethality of 5th ed and these last two sessions they succeeded in bluffing through 90% of the enemy camp and dungeon.

So on one side you have a very lethal combat and on the other you have the players trying to avoid it like the plague. And succeeding mostly so far. And getting absurdly lucky when it failed. And still nearly lost two members.

Combat as something to avoid outright or use tactics to minimize damage if possible as opposed to setpiece combat challenges being the entire point of play - sounds good so far, now if only WotC can actually support that idea through all their organized play.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;788502That can happen all the time. PCs can flee unwanted encounters and they "lose" that engagement.

In your scenario, if you lost without dying would the game still be over?

no. but, in this 'pirates!' scenario, losing would affect end-game. you do not end like governor of tortuga but as a pauper in jamaica, for example.

sorry if i am rambling.

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.

There 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.  Losing has to be an end condition that you wish to avoid.

Note that in an RPG, losing does not equal elimination from the campaign.  This 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."

I agree with this, but I'd actually go further. Speaking from personal experience, the ways for the player to win and lose are almost completely divorced from the ways for the character to win and lose.

Basically, the player wins if they are entertained by the game. If they're entertained so much that it leaves them with a great memory and an anecdote to tell then that's pretty much a total success.

On the other hand the player loses when they are bored by the game.

The point being that a character dying in dramatic, ironic, or even comedic circumstances can be just as much of a "win" from the player's point of view (if that death was entertaining and memorable) as the character achieving their aims would be. Possibly more so.

Now this doesn't mean that death is irrelevant and players should just throw character after character into the meat grinder without caring - because doing so will get boring (and therefore be a "loss" from the player's point of view). But what it does mean is that whether a character lives or dies is far less relevant than whether the players are entertained by the character's actions and fate.

Take your Dark Chateau as an example:

Quote from: Old Geezer;788961Rob 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, devastating 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.

If the characters go up the road in a careful manner, notice the potential ambush, and circle round and take out the goblins from behind, is it a win or a loss for the players?

Well, it's probably a win - the players will almost certainly be pleased and entertained by the thought of their characters being cunning and outwitting the goblins. It could be a loss for the players though. Maybe they find having to be so careful constantly boring or maybe they want to play Big Damn Heroes and don't enjoy playing a game where they're constantly having to sneak to stay alive.

On the other hand, if the characters simply toddle up the road and get unexpectedly peppered with arrows - and end up mostly dead with the survivors fleeing for their lives - is this a win or a loss for the players?

This is quite likely to be considered a loss by many groups, but others would fall about laughing at their own stupidity and end up with a memory and anecdote that will last for years. And that would be a most definite win.

So basically I don't think that the important thing is the frequency of death in the campaign, but whether the contexts in which deaths occur (if they do) are boring or entertaining. And that's totally 100% subjective. One group may find "unnecessary" deaths boring and annoying, and another may find them hilarious. Some might find adventures with little risk of death boring, and others might find them exciting. And the same group might have different views depending on which game they're playing.

Quote from: Opaopajr;789090Yes, info given matters. But that does not necessarily deal with my creation of lethal frequency. Just because I run things at a "1" does not mean I drop such things upon the players when they are 'safe'. If you have made no real enemies and are off to the local grocer, you will likely live.

They're separated by how much the player chooses to aggressively explore — and with how much information. That's your dial, your free-will, not mine. You have access to me, as GM, to ask how much your character would know of the world. But you are free to explore in total ignorance as well.

Choose to plane-hop any ol' magical gate willy nilly, not my decision. Choose to go spelunking any ol' hole willy nilly, not my decision. Choose to travel blind to the next land without guidance willy nilly, not my decision. Choose to bring cheesecake to the Sunday potluck willy nilly, not my decision. And yet we know which of these things has a lower chance of mortality, on average.

Lethality Frequency is not solely within my power. It ends soon after I create that space, and those actors. I design the world; I watch you make decisions. You are free to pursue adventure, or the knowledge to make better informed decisions about said adventure.

You are free to bite off more than you can chew, as often as you like, even with your eyes closed. I am like the Giving Tree GM. I respect your life choices.

Then the anvil falls from the sky and hits them, save or die. That's what it feels like anyways.

Quote from: ostap bender;789146no. but, in this 'pirates!' scenario, losing would affect end-game. you do not end like governor of tortuga but as a pauper in jamaica, for example.

sorry if i am rambling.

Thus the difference between "game over" for a particular playing piece and just a different outcome.

Blacky you're confusing a "win" with a great anecdote or story.  Everyone remembers Epic failures as well as Epic victories, especially when they are humorous or had emotional content to them.  However, even if my character has an epic death, there's still the loss of the character.  "Could we have won without the loss?"  A great death is better then a stooge death, and some stooge deaths are at least humorous, but just because we can laugh at them later or tell the tales over a beer doesn't mean that at the time it wasn't a loss.  It was.

Death (if you don't get Raised) is "You no longer get to have adventures with this character, make up a new one."  That's not interesting complications, that's not getting to play through more Drama, that's not entertainment, that's...the end of playing that character.  That's loss from the Player's perspective.  Now maybe the character is up in Valhalla with his face mashed between a pair of mead-drenched Double-D's, but as far as the player is concerned, the character is gone.  That's a loss.

Quote from: dragoner;789172Then the anvil falls from the sky and hits them, save or die. That's what it feels like anyways.

Anyone die in Boomtown yet?