TheRPGSite

This is sort of a spin off from the recent discussions of the AD and D 5e Intellect Devourer. Opinions are divided to say the least. The creature's potential quick lethality is major sticking point with some seeing it as an exciting challenge and others are a potential campaign wrecker as it could offer sudden death/disability to PCs without much warning and consider that unfair or at least not very fun. Many of those that hold the opposing view feel that's the risks of playing the game for the player and leading the life of an adventurer for the character. And you can always make a new character.

I find myself in the middle. The thrill of adventure and role playing demands some risks, but I don't feel my characters are totally expendable. There's a spectrum of opinion but I found myself wondering so I decided to try a poll on PC death, play lethality and assumed Script Immunity.

So on a scale of 1 to 10 with

1 being: PCs have no Script Immunity. They live and die by their abilities, actions and the dice.

10 being: Player Characters are the same as protagonists in a movie, novel or other work of fiction and can only die or be incapacitated at the appropriate (how ever you would define it) moments in the course of the game to avoid trivial or anti climactic deaths.

Where does your preference fall?

I've voted 4. My default is on the gritty side, but i'm not a fan of arbitrary death every session. That disturbs the flow of the campaign if you're playing a long-term game (for 1 shots then i vote 1 - anything's on the table).

So, hard challenges with a grittier slant, but with a get-out if you play smart and hard. The occasional encounter where defeat and retreat are the only get-out you've got is still a get-out and therefore fine.

For D&D and similar games, (3). I avoid encounters without providing an alternate route (and if it is "run to live another day"), PCs can develop awesome abilities that can potentially get them out of jail for free, and they have greater potential to circumvent many troubles with a bit of foresight and planning than the majority of the setting inhabitants, but when the chips fall they do fall as they do fall.
Woe to those who have neither worked around the too powerful/scary opposition, nor have the tools to deal with the results.

Other games of mine may hover up or down that scale. A gritty Call of Cthulhu one-shot calls for a different classification than a heroic Marvel Super Heroes game.

Eh I voted right in the middle. The players are the heroes, but there must be a chance of peril, REAL peril, or else there's no tension. On the other hand, if a friend says: "I really do not like character death under any circumstances" I make a compromise and have them detail what sorts of stakes that they'd like to handle instead. But that's a rare exception.

In games with Fate Points, however (Dark Heresy and WFRP), my answer would be more like 3, though.

I went with a 5, but for me it really depends on several factors -- are we doing a one shot or planning a campaign, how new is the person to gaming, what system are we running, how nasty is the threat that killed them (would it be a lame death), how amaze-balls was the die roll that killed them, did they do anything "wrong" (unnecessarily risky, etc) to lead to the would-be kill shot, etc, etc, etc.

I voted a 1 for my home campaigns. I let the players do whatever they want, but it's a jungle out there and shit happens.

I went for 3, but that is my personal preference as a player. As a GM I am honestly pretty cool with what the group finds comfortable. Really for me the most important thing is to have a clear sense of this expectation going in, then I am fine going with whatever. But if I do find it more enjoyable when the players are cool with some gritty death.

I went with a 4, for the same reasons everyone else gives. I like there to be risk and a chance of death but I don't want a dead PC every other game night either, or cheap one-shot kills. I've seen that in campaigns and it's no fun.

I voted in the middle, but really this is depending on the game.  In nWoD and OSR I expect to die.  In Scion and FATE I expect to kick ass and take names like a god.  It depends on the setting and game that is being played.

I sorted myself at three.

All in all, I let the dice fall as they may and like my combats challenging to harrowing. I have been known to run a lethal game and TPK is the usual way my campaigns have ended so far


There are a few things that bump me up from a straight 1, though.

Enemies that outstrip the PCs in power are a distinct possibility, though I also run mostly level tailored encounters. Learning DMing in 3rd edition might be a big part of that and it is something I intent to move further away from.

Also, I'm actually bothered by PCs deaths and particularly TPKs. A dead PC eliminates a lot of dangling plot hooks from a campaign, that have to slowly build up again.

A TPK has only once not been a campaign stopper and that was only because a few players and thus PCs wheren't at the table that day.

So, in case of a TPK, all the work I put into preparing that campaign, this wealth of NPCs that have developed, the old enemies biding their time for a triumphant return?

All gone.

My ideal solution is that the players learn better tactics and caution with their PCs, but I've never seen that happen.


I'm also of a "PCs are special from level 1" mindset, just not "Protected from Death" or "Heroes of Prophecy" level special.


I think I'll start my next campaign with a very clear statement that there will be deadly things, I'm not DMing a heroic game and hirelings are very much an option. Surrender, parley and fleeing are at times encouraged.

On average I tend to run things in the 4-6 range, because I prefer games where death is a possibility (though not a high probability) but the actual degree of danger varies with the game and the setting. FREX

• OD&D was 1 or 2. Pretty deadly per the rules. TPKs are always possible and occurred more than once. And the highest PC after years of play was level 6 or 7 fighter. Pretty grim and deadly.

• Runequest is closer to 2 or 3. Shit gets lethal and until characters hit Rune level their chance of Resurrection or Divine Intervention is fairly low i.e. < 20%.

• Call of Cthulhu has much less combat so while not actually as deadly as Runequest, loss of character due to death or insanity probably ranks it around 3-5. One time scenarios like those in Blood Brothers II, would be even lower maybe a 2, since the characters aren't intended for repeated play and fatalities are in keeping with the source material of most scenarios.

• Next we get to games with metagame bennies like Star Wars D6 or Honor+Intrigue. I'll use H+I as an example since that is what we are currently playing. Honor+Intrigue includes Fortune Points that allow characters to avoid death via a typical swashbuckler trope like being knocked unconsious by a bloody grazing wound to the head or being left for dead on the battlefield. So far we haven't succeeded in killing any PCs after 100 or so sessions. However, without Fortune points most if not all the PCs would have died at one or more points in play. So maybe call that a 5-7+ including bennies.

• Finally a game like Star Trek we played like the TV series. Main characters never died. It was almost totally off the table really. If they did die they either got brought back to life or we found out it wasn't really them - alien shapeshifter or what have you. Lack of lethality = 10.

While three is a cool number, I voted five. If I had to do it all over again, I just might vote three.

I voted '6', though special snowflake probably applies.

I tend to play Burning Wheel, where cumulative moderate wounds can't kill you (but a critical hit will probably kill an uninjured combatant), but they leave you crippled for months, with no real way to speed up healing. So that sounds maybe 3ish.

On the other hand, I don't tend to kill characters when I have them at my disposal (e.g. when they've been captured), I don't especially like losing all the campaign capital that's been built up when we can instead explore the depths of their misery (like cutting off hands). Also, because injuries are such a burden, combat tends not to be the central focus of play. So that bumps me up a few.

Lately I've been getting back into the old school approach, but even so, PC death unrelated to strategic or tactical player choices just strikes me as wasteful.

By 'choice' I don't mean the choice to do the thing the game is all about, like 'adventuring' or 'dungeon crawling', but accepting some localized additional risk like a dangerous shortcut, or pushing their luck when they're aware their resources are low.

So meeting an unknown creature that's likely going to kill a random party member before the PCs have any chance of assessing its capabilities, that's off the table.  (That doesn't seem much more engaging than having them die of dysentery on the way to the dungeon.)

If, on the other hand, the players have some vague idea of the danger posed by an Intellect Devourer, either what it does or just that there's a threat of instant death, then instant death is certainly on the table.

I voted 1... because that's where I'm at at the moment. For years I Played with a group where no one EVER died... so with my new group I'm relishing every death, just loving that things feel dangerous again. We've had a number of TPKs and they always fill me with joy and laughter.
The novelty might wear off eventually... I might decide I want to get into a character long term... but I might not. So far I'm really happy making new ones and trying them on for several sessions... I've played all sorts of things I otherwise would avoid because I know in a few weeks I'm likely to move on to something else.
It feels like breaking off an old tired relationship and enjoying the freedom of being single again.

I admit to being the '8' vote.  I'm a staunch partisan of the Tasha Yar Rule: PCs in a long-term campaign shouldn't cash out because of a random encounter or a mook orc's critical hit.

Incapacitated, though, that's another ball of wax.

once pcs touch the dice they have chosen to place their fate in the roll. so, if you roll something happens. on theo other hand i tend to make consequences as clear as it is possible (it is dragon's lair and you are toast if you go there). that would probably be 1 but not deadly if you choose so.

I always play in 1, and I let the system dictate the lethality of the game. Playing 7th Sea RAW is highly unlikely the PCs will die, anyway.

I voted 1. You earn the right to be the hero, if it's handed to you it's worthless.

That said, when I'm playing with my son or other new players, I tend to go easy on them.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;787540I went for 3, but that is my personal preference as a player. As a GM I am honestly pretty cool with what the group finds comfortable. Really for me the most important thing is to have a clear sense of this expectation going in, then I am fine going with whatever. But if I do find it more enjoyable when the players are cool with some gritty death.

Im much the same, though at the 2 range.

I usually let things play out as they will. But. If I see something that is totally out of wack vs whats going on. I might nudge it back to something more sane. But I am also not the players safety net. This they know all too well.

I prefer to roll with it and see where things go.

I do though dislike instadeath without any warning or possibility to avoid or react against.

An Intellect Devourer you can fight, resist, raise dead if you can, etc.

1.

Very Phantasy Star Online tagline, "You are not the only Hero."

And further superheroes never made any sense to me. You're not special, the universe is big, you will die and be forgotten eventually — go forth and make meaning with that. Have fun!

Quote from: ostap bender;787576once pcs touch the dice they have chosen to place their fate in the roll. so, if you roll something happens. on theo other hand i tend to make consequences as clear as it is possible (it is dragon's lair and you are toast if you go there). that would probably be 1 but not deadly if you choose so.

Go this way as well.
Once you roll dice you have to accept the concequence. If you don;t want to do that don;t rol dice

I am a 1. Shit can happen anytime.

This doesn't mean that surviving is a random occurrence. The players are free to go where they wish and to stir up more trouble then they can handle. There are plenty of clues to be found by the prudent minded player that can give them a hint about when they may be diving into the deep end of the pool.  

Information about such trouble is available and if the players march into it headfirst without any intelligence on the matter then sometimes they will learn the hard way.

I am of the opinion that being a hero means doing what needs to be done even at great personal risk. If the risk is lowered or eliminated simply on the premise that the PCs ARE heroes, then they are robbed of the opportunity to live up to their title.

I think you should allow plenty of PC advantages. Then, if characters kick the bucket, so be it.  For example, in our BFRPG game, characters get max hp's every time they level (death occurs at 0). We also have a modified recovery rule (you recover hp's=lvl+ConMod/Hour; spells also come back fast, too)  Characters also get a session pool of three d6's that they can use to add to any roll. (If they save the d6's, they get a session XP bonus of 10% per die.)

So, max hp's, quick recovery, possible dice roll perks (or more rapid XP gain). But if you die, you die. I roll in the open.

Sometimes your character gets offed.  You then cheerfully roll up a new one and see how they do.

I voted '1' because I do let the dice fall as they may and if characters die then so be it.

But that doesn't tell the whole story, for two reasons.

Firstly - assuming we're talking about D&D here - I play in a setting where death is not the end. So even though characters might die to a single unlucky roll of the dice that doesn't mean that they're out of the campaign. In almost every case the character can be raised if the player wants to continue playing them (that's usually the case, but occasionally a player will want a change of character and will prefer to roll up a new one instead).

In fact I can't remember the last time a character died and wasn't able to be raised. Sure it might mean going back to town or even going to the city to the high temple, but a raise is always readily available if they want it. I don't artificially ration out raise dead spells or make them only work at the whim of the gods or make the party go on a side-quest or any of the other things I've heard about to try to make raising less common and death more "meaningful".

If I want death to be final and meaningful I'll play a game more suited to that - like Warhammer or Call of Cthulhu.

Secondly, I'm fair to the players. While I don't fudge things to keep them alive I also don't take glee in killing them and I don't spring insurmountable danger on them without warning. Yes, if they take on more than they can handle there will be deaths (and there may be deaths anyway if they're unlucky) but I will make sure that if they're heading towards taking on more than they can handle there will be ample warning that this is the case.

So although I voted a "1", my games probably have a lower turnover of new characters than many people who voted "3" or "5". Character death happens reasonably frequently. Players having to create new characters because of this practically never happens.

Quote from: Blacky the Blackball;787629Character death happens reasonably frequently. Players having to create new characters because of this practically never happens.

I wouldn't call that 'lethal' then... it's not much different than dying in WOW and having to make a 'corpse run'. It's not '1'.
If I know, going into a battle, that even if I die I stand a very good chance of getting rezzed and seeing the sun tomorrow... nope, not feeling the danger there. No real consequence. Just a bit of inconvenience.

This is an example of a game I was in that I would call a '1'.

Cyberpunk game, First session, party meets in a bar and gets the plot. We head out onto the street. GM rolls to see if there is an encounter, a booster gang is passing. GM rolls to see how dangerous they are, they are very dangerous.

The booster Gang open fire, and kill us all before we can react.

All done totally by the rules, no fudging.


If you would have run the session differently, you should not have voted 1.

Quote from: Nexus;7875081 being: PCs have no Script Immunity. They live and die by their abilities, actions and the dice.

10 being: Player Characters are the same as protagonists in a movie, novel or other work of fiction and can only die or be incapacitated at the appropriate (how ever you would define it) moments in the course of the game to avoid trivial or anti climactic deaths.

Where does your preference fall?

This scale makes no sense to me, in that there can be very little distinction between a 1 and a 10. Two examples here:

1) I run a dramatic horror campaign emulating high-body-count horror stories, where there are very frequent times for appropriate death. If a death was inappropriate, I as GM would for sure not allow the PC to die - but in practice I have PCs die very frequently. This is a 10 that is barely distinguishable from a 1.

2) I run a game where the world background is such that the PCs rarely face permanent death, but if they do, then I always allow it. For example, an Amber campaign where none of the enemies want to face an Amberite death curse. This is technically a 1 because they live and die by their actions, but there is very little difference from a 10.

Quote from: jhkim;7876781) I run a dramatic horror campaign emulating high-body-count horror stories, where there are very frequent times for appropriate death. If a death was inappropriate, I as GM would for sure not allow the PC to die - but in practice I have PCs die very frequently. This is a 10 that is barely distinguishable from a 1.

I'm curious. What death could possibly be inappropriate in a high body count horror game? Could you provide a few examples.

Quote from: Simlasa;787673I wouldn't call that 'lethal' then... it's not much different than dying in WOW and having to make a 'corpse run'.

I'll have to take your word for that - I don't do MMOs.

QuoteIt's not '1'.

That was kind of my point and why I gave the explanation. The number scale is about how much you intervene to stop characters dying, not what the consequences of character death are.

For me, the consequences of character death are very different in different games and settings. I always DM on a '1', regardless of the game, and the difference in lethality is based on the game and setting.

In D&D (I usually run it in Mystara which is very high magic) raising the dead is commonplace and death isn't usually permanent.

In something like Runequest or Rolemaster where raising the dead is still there but less commonplace, death is just as common but is more often permanent.

In games like Call of Cthulhu or Eldritch Skies or Mage the Ascension or Ars Magica, death is always permanent, and varies in frequency.

In games like Mutants and Masterminds or Feng Shui, death is theoretically always permanent but is vanishingly rare because the game mechanics mean that characters are usually merely knocked unconscious if they lose a fight rather than dying.

But whichever system and setting I'm running, I don't fudge things to keep the players alive - so it's still a "1". It's just that a "1" has different consequences depending on the game.

QuoteIf I know, going into a battle, that even if I die I stand a very good chance of getting rezzed and seeing the sun tomorrow... nope, not feeling the danger there. No real consequence. Just a bit of inconvenience.

Actually, the tension is still there - it's just transferred. You're not worried about death in and of itself any more than you're worried about falling unconscious (although it is more of a pain to heal). But you are still worried about the party not being able to recover your body for it to be raised, which can be a real danger - and at low level in particular it can mean that the party might not be able to afford the higher level resurrection spell necessary to get you back.

But as I said, I play different games that have different feels to them. When I want high danger and high stakes I play a game that has that. When I don't want those things I play a different game that has lower danger and stakes. Variety is the spice of life, and there's no right or wrong way to play.

Quote from: Blacky the Blackball;787683When I don't want those things I play a different game that has lower danger and stakes. Variety is the spice of life, and there's no right or wrong way to play.

Of course. I guess I just think of 'death' as a permanent thing... so 'death followed by rezz' is something different, like you said, going unconscious.
In general if I wanted a less lethal game I'd rather play/run something where there was less overt violence... more politics or investigation... vs. playing something overtly violent where damage just gets dusted off. Just a matter of taste though. Similar to how I love horror movies but don't much care for superheroes or modern action movies.

I think jhkim hit the nose on the head.  Who cares if the GM is wearing his 'tough guy' shirt if the party is up to its knees in healing potions, the system insulates from death, or the opposition is afraid of or unwilling to kill PCs?

The more interesting metric for me is the actual rate of character loss - the player can no longer use that character - in milliwhacks ( (character losses * 1000) / (sessions * players/session)).

I played about three years of bi-weekly, Paizo adventure path 3.5e and in that time we had two TPKs.  Call that 60 sessions with a party of 4-5 (so, 9 unrecoverable deaths) so that play style rates 33 milliwhacks.

In four one-sessions games of Fiasco (avg. 4 PCs) I've seen maybe two deaths (both mine)? So that play style rates 125 milliwhacks.

Quote from: jadrax;787677This is an example of a game I was in that I would call a '1'.

Cyberpunk game, First session, party meets in a bar and gets the plot. We head out onto the street. GM rolls to see if there is an encounter, a booster gang is passing. GM rolls to see how dangerous they are, they are very dangerous.

The booster Gang open fire, and kill us all before we can react.

All done totally by the rules, no fudging.


If you would have run the session differently, you should not have voted 1.

i have played in several 2020 games that sort of went like that. our gm used to joke that just sending us to a grocery store is an adventure.

Quote from: fuseboy;787688The more interesting metric for me is the actual rate of character loss - the player can no longer use that character

I think this is an important metric, because I notice everyone's focusing on character death.  I've played in lots of games where there was no risk of character death, but a character being removed from play or permanently altered was.

Quote from: ostap bender;787690i have played in several 2020 games that sort of went like that. our gm used to joke that just sending us to a grocery store is an adventure.

Wasn't there a Shadowrun adventure that basically was a trip to the grocery store?

2.

I want my players to have fun, of course.  But I tell them beforehand:

"This game is the story of a world.  People lived on it.  Some died young, some lived to a ripe old age, some explored to the horizon and became heroes.  We will not know which one your characters are until we play."

Or to put it another way, we won't know who's Luke, who's Wedge, who's Biggs, and who's Porkins until we've played for a year or more.

I voted 1, but I'm wondering if I read the OP differently than others. I want character death/loss to be a very real risk in my games, especially in dangerous situations, but I also want it to make sense. Arbitrary death-by-system is stupid; if my PC is killed by a situation or enemy I wasn't aware of and couldn't have done anything to defend against or avoid, the DM's just being a dick. If I've knowingly exposed her/him to a potentially dangerous situation, however, and whether through poor choices or just rotten luck with the dice my PC winds up buying the farm? Them's the breaks.

Quote from: Bren;787680I'm curious. What death could possibly be inappropriate in a high body count horror game? Could you provide a few examples.

Sure, but as a caveat, what counts as "dramatic" depends a lot on the circumstances and the particulars of the story.  You can never say "It's dramatically inappropriate for a hero to die of disease" because with imagination you can generally come up with a counter-example.

In general, though, for drama in a high-body-count horror story you want both the deaths and the horror to escalate.  If there is a high body count early on from a very mundane / non-horrific source (like a car crash, say), that could interfere with the escalating horror.  A heroic death before reaching the full horror might be inappropriate, depending on the story.

Quote from: jhkim;787708In general, though, for drama in a high-body-count horror story you want both the deaths and the horror to escalate.

Yes, that makes sense.

QuoteIf there is a high body count early on from a very mundane / non-horrific source (like a car crash, say), that could interfere with the escalating horror.

Gotcha. That seems like a pretty good example.

QuoteA heroic death before reaching the full horror might be inappropriate, depending on the story.

This does not seem like a good example for high-body count horror as deaths in those films are almost never, if ever, heroic. But mostly see what you mean now. Thanks!

Quote from: Imperator;787578I always play in 1, and I let the system dictate the lethality of the game.

This.

Quote from: Old Geezer;7877042.

I want my players to have fun, of course.  But I tell them beforehand:

"This game is the story of a world.  People lived on it.  Some died young, some lived to a ripe old age, some explored to the horizon and became heroes.  We will not know which one your characters are until we play."

I also picked 2. I figure players have to deal with their choices, but every once in a while, you get a glitch in some untested rules, or an opponent turns out to be too good and I have to pick whether to kill the whole party or have them captured.

Quote from: woodsmoke;787706I voted 1, but I'm wondering if I read the OP differently than others. I want character death/loss to be a very real risk in my games, especially in dangerous situations, but I also want it to make sense. Arbitrary death-by-system is stupid; if my PC is killed by a situation or enemy I wasn't aware of and couldn't have done anything to defend against or avoid, the DM's just being a dick. If I've knowingly exposed her/him to a potentially dangerous situation, however, and whether through poor choices or just rotten luck with the dice my PC winds up buying the farm? Them's the breaks.

Then it's not a 1.  A 1 would be like a WW2 battle; sometimes the way you find out there's a minefield is when your lead tank explodes.

What's interesting to me is how the distribution of answers skews in the two places you have this poll up.

I'd like to see you put it up in Dragonsfoot or ODD74 or someplace like that too.

I went with 2, but maybe there may be something I'm misunderstanding.

Is this number based on how I as the GM handle the results of player choices and actions, or does it also include the challenges I throw at the players?

While I have from time to time in the past, I stopped doing things like fudging rolls or pulling punches and underplaying dangerous baddies. At the same time, it's not like each week it's raining ancient red dragons, intellect devourers, and rust monsters. Nor is every group of green meanies out to kill the party, sometimes there are other motives like looting, harassing and/or capture.

I just took the question to be asking what is our preference... not even how we actually run things.
My preference is for plausible dangers to be plausibly dangerous... but that doesn't mean I think every game should a Busby Berkeley extravaganza of death. I'm happy if a session has no combat at all... vs. some random thing the GM shoves in because he thinks we want 'action'.

Quote from: Simlasa;787735a Busby Berkeley extravaganza of death

You must have been watching very different Busby Berkeley films to me...

Quote from: Blacky the Blackball;787748You must have been watching very different Busby Berkeley films to me...

I was watching one of his spectacles the other day on TCM and it kind of reminded me a tiny bit of the scene in Logan's Run where the folks who have hit 30 do an anti-grav ballet and explode in mid air.

Quote from: Old Geezer;787729What's interesting to me is how the distribution of answers skews in the two places you have this poll up.

I'd like to see you put it up in Dragonsfoot or ODD74 or someplace like that too.

And BGG/RPGG.

Quote from: fuseboy;787688I think jhkim hit the nose on the head.  Who cares if the GM is wearing his 'tough guy' shirt if the party is up to its knees in healing potions, the system insulates from death, or the opposition is afraid of or unwilling to kill PCs?

Agreed.  Judging from the "I'm a ONE!  Yeah!  Except when I'm not," responses, I wonder whether some folks are afraid of being seen as a wimp if they don't staunchly proclaim that they throw PCs off the deep end.

For my part, I'm on the high, lonely end of the scale.  But I also GM GURPS, a much more lethal system than the D&D/d20/Pathfinder-class most of the players on this forum seem to use.  Healing potions are quite uncommon on my world, and have limited effects (something that can repair as much as a single sword wound is almost top-of-the-line).  Few players have ever played priests, and most healing involves mundane physicking.  When a character dies, that's it -- Resurrection in GURPS has a huge, all but prohibitive fatigue cost, there aren't as many as twenty people in the whole world who know it, and with but a single exception they're all priests who will only even attempt it on a fervent co-religionist -- tough luck if you're a thousand miles away from St. Aevryl's Basilica, eh? -- need a terribly good reason to do so, and is -1 to cast for every day the subject is dead.

Which is all rather moot, because in the 29 years I've been GMing GURPS, Resurrection has never been successfully cast on a PC.

I voted 1. To me it's the same as playing any other game. You make your move, you toss the dice, the outcome is whatever it is, and you play on. The playing pieces are not me. That's the beauty of it: Death has no sting in Little Wars fought with toy soldiers.

Quote from: Phillip;787784I voted 1. To me it's the same as playing any other game. You make your move, you toss the dice, the outcome is whatever it is, and you play on. The playing pieces are not me. That's the beauty of it: Death has no sting in Little Wars fought with toy soldiers.

This is right where I am.  There's nothing macho about it.  Just a game like any other. It's like playing cards, a game of hoops, whatever.  Sometimes you lose- and that's ok.

Quote from: jhkim;787678This scale makes no sense to me, in that there can be very little distinction between a 1 and a 10. Two examples here:

1) I run a dramatic horror campaign emulating high-body-count horror stories, where there are very frequent times for appropriate death. If a death was inappropriate, I as GM would for sure not allow the PC to die - but in practice I have PCs die very frequently. This is a 10 that is barely distinguishable from a 1.

2) I run a game where the world background is such that the PCs rarely face permanent death, but if they do, then I always allow it. For example, an Amber campaign where none of the enemies want to face an Amberite death curse. This is technically a 1 because they live and die by their actions, but there is very little difference from a 10.

Yea, I simply went by the actual given definition of 1. But the posts mainly seem to equate that, not with simply playing the game, but with it being always a game like playing 1st-level characters in old D&D or something.

Quote from: RunningLaser;787786This is right where I am.  There's nothing macho about it.  Just a game like any other. It's like playing cards, a game of hoops, whatever.  Sometimes you lose- and that's ok.

The plethora of "throw the PCs into the meat grinder" responses makes me wonder about the oft-stated preference on this board for making mystery scenarios easy give-aways (http://thealexandrian.net/wordpress/1118/roleplaying-games/three-clue-rule).  There seems to be a mentality that it's okay to let the dice fall where they may and story-be-damned when we're talking about combat, but as soon as a mystery scenario comes along "immersion" goes out the window and we're spoon-feeding things to the players so they can all feel like Hercule Poirot.

Quote from: daniel_ream;787789There seems to be a mentality that it's okay to let the dice fall where they may and story-be-damned when we're talking about combat, but as soon as a mystery scenario comes along "immersion" goes out the window and we're spoon-feeding things to the players so they can all feel like Hercule Poirot.

I don't spoon feed people for mysteries.

As a result my players will create their own red herrings and flounder about looking lost. But floundering and being lost is frustrating (for them first, for me eventually) so once that has gone on long enough that it ceases to be fun to watch, then I help them by summarizing what they know, reminding them of clues they may have forgotten or neglected to pursue, and suggesting a few possible next steps. It helps to remember a clue that seems obvious when you already know the solution is often lost in a welter of data and possibilities when you don't know the solution.

But then I will summarize and list options in combat if a player seems to be frustrated and floundering.

Now if the PC is Hercule Poirot, then they probably have some skills e.g. deduction, forensics, detective career, keen observation, sense motive, or something that the player can roll on to get a clue that their character might have observed or deduced. So there is that possibility as well.

Quote from: daniel_ream;787789The plethora of "throw the PCs into the meat grinder" responses makes me wonder about the oft-stated preference on this board for making mystery scenarios easy give-aways (http://thealexandrian.net/wordpress/1118/roleplaying-games/three-clue-rule).  There seems to be a mentality that it's okay to let the dice fall where they may and story-be-damned when we're talking about combat, but as soon as a mystery scenario comes along "immersion" goes out the window and we're spoon-feeding things to the players so they can all feel like Hercule Poirot.

Maybe they have dull players. Or maybe they have average players, and you would find 221B Baker Street or Sherlock Holmes Consulting Detective or How to Host a Murder too easy to be fun.

A lot of people suck at the dungeon game - old hands who've been taught bad habits, more than newbs inclined to use common sense. Since the point is for everyone to have fun, it makes sense to gear the game to the participants.

I always enjoyed Defender in the arcades, even though I couldn't get far on a quarter. (I think it really called not only for greater talent than mine, but for two sets of hands and eyes.) On the other hand, there may be games that are just too tough for me, so discouraging that I would lose interest.

Quote from: daniel_ream;787789The plethora of "throw the PCs into the meat grinder" responses makes me wonder about the oft-stated preference on this board for making mystery scenarios easy give-aways (http://thealexandrian.net/wordpress/1118/roleplaying-games/three-clue-rule).  There seems to be a mentality that it's okay to let the dice fall where they may and story-be-damned when we're talking about combat, but as soon as a mystery scenario comes along "immersion" goes out the window and we're spoon-feeding things to the players so they can all feel like Hercule Poirot.

I don't create "mystery" scenarios, and I think "immersion" is a crock of shit.

It depends on the genre, system and players for me. In our new D&D 5e game I'd rate it 1. In a HERO supers 4 color game I'd rate it 8+.

Quote from: Old Geezer;787823I don't create "mystery" scenarios, and I think "immersion" is a crock of shit.

In all your years of running D&D you mean that the old haunted house was never a hoax orchestrated by Old Man Withers? :p

1

Plot immunity is for story wankery

10.  Letting the dice fall where they may and treating characters as disposable, interchangable cogs is for boardgames.

Quote from: Gabriel2;78784010.  Letting the dice fall where they may and treating characters as disposable, interchangable cogs is for wargames.

Fixed yer typo.

"Dungeons & Dragons, Rules for Fantastic Medieval Wargames Campaigns Playable with Paper and Pencil and Miniature Figures".

Plot immunity is for Mommy's pwecious widdle snowfwakes who cwy if they lose.

Quote from: Old Geezer;787726Then it's not a 1.  A 1 would be like a WW2 battle; sometimes the way you find out there's a minefield is when your lead tank explodes.

And the way I usually find out there's a trap in a dungeon is by setting it off. If being in an active theater of war doesn't constitute "knowingly exposing [my PC] to a potentially dangerous situation," I don't know what does.

I went at 7.  There's always the chance you can lose your character, but if it happens all the time you don't invest anything in them, just make up something that's stats and no personality because you don't want to get too attached.

I remember years ago I had about a two-month run of my character dying (due to just bad rolls or other things out of my control) each week.  

A little defense against random  botch rolls wouldn't hurt.

My preferences are in the 2-8 range, so I voted 5. My 4e D&D campaign is about an 8; PCs can die but can usually be brought back - we've not had a permanent PC death in two years now, session 27 - and we just had session 75. 3 PCs were perma-killed in session 27 and there was a 4-PC TPK in session 1. It could happen again (I never fudge dice) but the odds are well against it in any one session.

When I run old school D&D games they tend to be around a 2, my 1e/OSRIC game recently had a TPK. Occasionally I'll have PCs captured instead of killed if it seems plausible, but I'm happy to kill them.

I put myself for 2.
I think I play many games with a real old-school 1, but i have too much faith in my subconscious rooting for the PCs.  I do do a lot or parleying and social gaming.

0/10

The distribution between the two polls is interesting, more weighed towards 1 here by a substantial bit. The other is clustered too but not as much towards 10 though 6+ is significant.

Quote from: Old Geezer;787848Plot immunity is for people who play the game differently than I do, with different goals and preferences.

There.  Fixed that for you.

I understand having a preference here but do not understand the need to frame it as an outgrowth of one's personal character or as a moral failing of those who don't share your preference.

Quote from: LordVreeg;787927I put myself for 2.
I think I play many games with a real old-school 1, but i have too much faith in my subconscious rooting for the PCs.  I do do a lot or parleying and social gaming.

That is an interesting point. I do like lethal systems but I also find things often shift more toward parley and social interactions in my games when death is easy to come by. For example, in game systems that don't have huge disparities in health, HP or wounds between PCs and opponents, where they are basically the same and combat carries a high risk of death, my players are much more apt to avoid fighting unless absolutely necessary.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;788133That is an interesting point. I do like lethal systems but I also find things often shift more toward parley and social interactions in my games when death is easy to come by. For example, in game systems that don't have huge disparities in health, HP or wounds between PCs and opponents, where they are basically the same and combat carries a high risk of death, my players are much more apt to avoid fighting unless absolutely necessary.

Socially lethal.

The PCs might dodge the literal bullet. But get totally annihilated at the social level.

We just about had that one recently where the groups mage arrogantly fired at the villain who was giving a little speach to the town. Luckily the shot missed as had it hit, hostages would have been killed where otherwise the villain was going to let them go no matter the outcome as long as he got a good fight out of it.  This would have slit the PCs social throat in that town pretty good. And word would have spread to other towns. Making things hard here and there even outside the area.

Or in Kefra's case. She got mad at some priests red tape bureaucracy which was helping the local villain and ended up severely insulting him. Later she was denied a raise dead. Roll new character AND the political situation is worse now.

1, always.

Quote from: daniel_ream;787789The plethora of "throw the PCs into the meat grinder" responses makes me wonder about the oft-stated preference on this board for making mystery scenarios easy give-aways (http://thealexandrian.net/wordpress/1118/roleplaying-games/three-clue-rule).

Weird that you would link to an essay that specifically says you SHOULDN'T be spoon-feeding clues to your players.

The only conclusion I can draw is that you consider "the PCs find a clue" to be unacceptable. I would personally love to see an example of these mystery scenarios you're apparently designing where the PCs are never allowed to find a clue.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;788133That is an interesting point. I do like lethal systems but I also find things often shift more toward parley and social interactions in my games when death is easy to come by. For example, in game systems that don't have huge disparities in health, HP or wounds between PCs and opponents, where they are basically the same and combat carries a high risk of death, my players are much more apt to avoid fighting unless absolutely necessary.

Yep.
And so they build alliances more, and learn how to play smart.
Or they learn all the shortcuts to fast chargen.

And sometimes social gaming also has it's own consequence. My main campaign has 2 players lost to play due to imprisonment, one in a gulag, another who blabbed important info and who was taken.  

Lethality sounds like death, in our circumstance, it equates to anything that takes your player off the board.

Quote from: LordVreeg;788187Yep.
And so they build alliances more, and learn how to play smart.
Or they learn all the shortcuts to fast chargen.

That's my main reason, as a GM, for favoring lethal violence in games... the sort of play that happens when combat becomes the true last resort.
As a player I enjoy TPKs and such because I find them hilarious, and failure in general is more entertaining to me... but as a GM it's more about my preference for playing out character interaction and seeing what Players come up with besides optimizing weapons and armor and combat skills.

Quote from: LordVreeg;788187My main campaign has 2 players lost to play due to imprisonment, one in a gulag, another who blabbed important info and who was taken.

Wow, Boston has changed a lot since I was there last.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;788132I understand having a preference here but do not understand the need to frame it as an outgrowth of one's personal character or as a moral failing of those who don't share your preference.

No kidding.  It's a game.  Different games have different styles.  The same games have different styles.  I mean, let's get this straight: is anyone seriously stipulating that the rate at which made-up make-believe sheets of paper get used up is a test of manhood?  (Hell, is anyone seriously under the delusion that there aren't a few hundred million people around who'd point and laugh at ALL of us for playing such childish make-pretend games in the first place?)

I would no more jeer at someone for having a different preference than mine than jeer at someone and call him a pussy for preferring baseball to a more "manly," rugged sport.

Quote from: Bren;788221Wow, Boston has changed a lot since I was there last.

I play with a rough crowd.
:)

Quote from: Ravenswing;788238No kidding.  It's a game.  Different games have different styles.  The same games have different styles.  I mean, let's get this straight: is anyone seriously stipulating that the rate at which made-up make-believe sheets of paper get used up is a test of manhood?  (Hell, is anyone seriously under the delusion that there aren't a few hundred million people around who'd point and laugh at ALL of us for playing such childish make-pretend games in the first place?)

I would no more jeer at someone for having a different preference than mine than jeer at someone and call him a pussy for preferring baseball to a more "manly," rugged sport.

I think it boils down to general human tribalism and the streak of insecurity that plagues the gaming community to some extent.

Quote from: Nexus;788291I think it boils down to general human tribalism and the streak of insecurity that plagues the gaming community to some extent.

No disagreement here.  I'm so convinced of the primacy of tribalism in so much of what we do that I preached a sermon on the subject in our church last year.  :pundit:

Yes, because the social networking allowed by a big brain is a more successful survival technique than large canine teeth (fangs). Tribalism is just forming and reinforcing social groups.

The way I run my games, the result of any die roll is sacrosanct, and if that means that a PC is crippled or killed, than that's what happens. I don't like or use purely meta-gamey mechanics like fate points or the like and in almost no system I play, there is a realistic chance to ressurrect dead characters.
However, I usually don't try to kill any PCs and usually leave them with an option or so to flee or to surrender.
I guess that's a "3" on this scale.

3 - 4ish I'd say. I don't want the players to feel completely detached from their characters, afraid they'd drop at any moment, and I don't want them too safe, though I often also utilise less than deadly tactics by the opponents - throw them in prisons, rob them and leave for dead, etc. etc. Of course, this depends - if they kill too many of the robbers, they might just slit throats sour over their killed companions, etc. etc.

Yeah. If the players think they are in a meat grinder then they arent as likely to invest much in the new characters or even whats going on overall.

Finding what an individual group leans to more is the oft bitchingly hard part at first.

Quote from: Omega;788469Finding what an individual group leans to more is the oft bitchingly hard part at first.

And something that causes so much freaking grief in this hobby.  I swear, a third of the posts in all the gaming forums would vanish tomorrow if GMs stated, right up front, "This is what my campaign's about.  This, that, and that are the styles I expect.  This, that and such are key expectations of my current players.  All that okay with you?  Great!  Let's get your character started."

And were honest and accurate about it.

It's not any "test of manhood" shit.

A game you can't lose isn't a game.  It's a pastime, not a game.  Model railroading is a pastime.  I cannot "lose" at running a train.

I get different things out of running trains with friends than I get out of playing games with friends.  I want a game, including an RPG, to be a "game," and that means there has to be a way to lose.

And "complications" aren't losing; the game is about having adventures, and adding complications means that the player characters have MORE adventures.  So instead of "losing," you reward the players (which is not the same as the player characters) for losing by "adding complications."

Quote from: Old Geezer;788487I get different things out of running trains with friends than I get out of playing games with friends.  I want a game, including an RPG, to be a "game," and that means there has to be a way to lose.

Its not real trains unless you blow up a bridge... or tie someone to the tracks... Head on collisions are good too...

maybe game where you can lose without dying (like sid meiers pirates) could be fun.

Quote from: ostap bender;788496maybe game where you can lose without dying (like sid meiers pirates) could be fun.

That 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?

You must be playing some pretty boring wargames, if extermination is the only victory condition.

Quote from: ostap bender;788496maybe game where you can lose without dying (like sid meiers pirates) could be fun.

If only we had the imagination to not make every conflict necessary about death! Could it be that perhaps the PCs would loose the kingdom they recently conquered, rather than THEIR LIVES AND EVERYONE THEY LOVE each time a challenge appears? Sure, they might take an arrow to the knee as they ride out to lead their men into battle, but chances of dying are very, very low as compared to the usual hike in the Tomb of Grotesque Horrorific Truly Doomsdayic Devices.

Not all words need to be designed by Games' Workshop, come on.

Quote from: Rincewind1;788521You must be playing some pretty boring wargames, if extermination is the only victory condition.



If only we had the imagination to not make every conflict necessary about death! Could it be that perhaps the PCs would loose the kingdom they recently conquered, rather than THEIR LIVES AND EVERYONE THEY LOVE each time a challenge appears? Sure, they might take an arrow to the knee as they ride out to lead their men into battle, but chances of dying are very, very low as compared to the usual hike in the Tomb of Grotesque Horrorific Truly Doomsdayic Devices.

Not all words need to be designed by Games' Workshop, come on.

Perfectly acceptable- so long as losing the kingdom means game over.

If the game doesn't end (at least for the characters in question) then we are not talking about an actual loss, just setback fodder for further adventure.

If the characters get to press on and continue, then whatever happened wasn't much of a victory/loss condition at all, it was just part of the ups and downs of an adventuring life.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;788524Perfectly acceptable- so long as losing the kingdom means game over.

If the game doesn't end (at least for the characters in question) then we are not talking about an actual loss, just setback fodder for further adventure.

If the characters get to press on and continue, then whatever happened wasn't much of a victory/loss condition at all, it was just part of the ups and downs of an adventuring life.

I'd be cool with playing a campaign where the goal is simple - you have a kingdom, if you loose it, game over, but I'd also be cool with playing a campaign when loosing a kingdom is a "set back". However, it is a pretty major setback - I'd say  that loosing something that you sent several in game hours earning, perhaps even hundreds of them for lengthier campaign, is a pretty serious loss.

Of course, we can be pedantic and say "very well, we lost, let us start another campaign, with same characters, focusing on regaining the kingdom" - I mean, you lost the previous campaign...so what? Nobody's taking anyone's birthday away over it.

And it'd make perfect sense - real life adventurers rarely gave up their swords over loosing kingdom once.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;788524If the characters get to press on and continue, then whatever happened wasn't much of a victory/loss condition at all, it was just part of the ups and downs of an adventuring life.

If you can roll up a new party and rejoin the party within a few hours of play time, soon after adopting the same campaign-level goal, that strikes me as just a speed bump too - at least from the perspective of the player playing the game.

Then there's the TPK followed by the GM setting his campaign notes on fire. Now that's a real game-ender. :)

Quote from: fuseboy;788526If you can roll up a new party and rejoin the party within a few hours of play time, soon after adopting the same campaign-level goal, that strikes me as just a speed bump too - at least from the perspective of the player playing the game.

Of course! In D&D death itself is sometimes only a speed bump.

Quote from: fuseboy;788526Then there's the TPK followed by the GM setting his campaign notes on fire. Now that's a real game-ender. :)

:rotfl:

Hardcore!!

Quote from: Ravenswing;788483And were honest and accurate about it.

Even being honest and accurate isn't sufficient. You have to communicate it in a manner so that the players understand what you meant. And I've seen very few players over the years who understand (or even care about) the jargon used to communicate about play styles and preferences.

The best we can hope for is to try to communicate up front to screen out strong incompatibilties and then not to get offended or take it personally when someone says, "you know this isn't the RPG experience I was looking for" and decides not to play (or GM).

Quote from: Old Geezer;788487It's not any "test of manhood" shit.

A game you can't lose isn't a game.  It's a pastime, not a game.  Model railroading is a pastime.  I cannot "lose" at running a train.

I get different things out of running trains with friends than I get out of playing games with friends.  I want a game, including an RPG, to be a "game," and that means there has to be a way to lose.

And "complications" aren't losing; the game is about having adventures, and adding complications means that the player characters have MORE adventures.  So instead of "losing," you reward the players (which is not the same as the player characters) for losing by "adding complications."

Bullshit.  As a couple of others said, you seem to equate "losing" with "death."  But even given the many games that don't result in one or more sides "losing," that's not at all accurate.  You don't "die" when your PC gets taken out; you get to restart with a new game piece.  In my mind, that's not one bit different from you losing the chess game and saying "Best two out of three?" or losing the poker hand and waiting for the next draw.

Beyond that, there's a second flaw in your argument: the implication that if there isn't a measurable body count, it's not actually possible to "lose," and therefore.  How does this square with your personal definition if you've got a lucky, skilled party and people don't actually drop?

Beyond that, come off it.  It's absolutely a "test of manhood" to you, given what you said: "real men" play manly games where PCs die in profusion, and only pussies -- or, how did you phrase it, "Mommy's pwecious widdle snowfwakes" -- are caught playing those types of games.  Own your own words, for pity's sake.

Finally, let's say that the definitions of "game" and "pastime" are indeed what you claim.

So freaking what?

I swear, that's like the faction who shrilly insist that "storygames" can't be REAL RPGs, because they declare that this element or that are What Every/No RPG Has, or like the blockhead who once goggled at me and blurted out "But how can it be a RPG without dungeons??"

Quote from: Old Geezer;788487A game you can't lose isn't a game.  It's a pastime, not a game.  Model railroading is a pastime.  I cannot "lose" at running a train.

I get different things out of running trains with friends than I get out of playing games with friends.  I want a game, including an RPG, to be a "game," and that means there has to be a way to lose.

And "complications" aren't losing; the game is about having adventures, and adding complications means that the player characters have MORE adventures.  So instead of "losing," you reward the players (which is not the same as the player characters) for losing by "adding complications."

The normal way to lose in a wargame is to fail to achieve your goals. The same works perfectly fine in RPGs. Games where you have to eliminate your playing piece when you lose are actually pretty rare.

In my experience, there are a lot of competitive RPG players who prefer low lethality because it means there is more continuity. So if they fail to defeat the supervillain Doctor Hex, then they can adjust and try again with the same characters in a later adventure. Amber is often high competitive and low-lethality, in my experience, as are some superhero games like Champions.

On the other hand, I know lots of non-competitive players who play with high lethality - mainly casual, "beer-and-pretzel" gamers who just like playing together socially to kill some orcs, get eaten by tentacled monstrosities, or whatever. When they get killed, they just laugh about it and roll up a new character.

Quote from: jhkim;788645On the other hand, I know lots of non-competitive players who play with high lethality - mainly casual, "beer-and-pretzel" gamers who just like playing together socially to kill some orcs, get eaten by tentacled monstrosities, or whatever. When they get killed, they just laugh about it and roll up a new character.

This sounds very much like my group, with the exception that rolling up a new character can be a hassle (more or less so depending on the edition), so we'll normally prefer to simply have the old one raised - hence our preference for both high lethality and easily accessible raising spells.

Quote from: Blacky the Blackball;788646This sounds very much like my group, with the exception that rolling up a new character can be a hassle (more or less so depending on the edition), so we'll normally prefer to simply have the old one raised - hence our preference for both high lethality and easily accessible raising spells.

good way of getting excess gold/moneys out of the players, too!  :D

Quote from: Ravenswing;788617
Finally, let's say that the definitions of "game" and "pastime" are indeed what you claim.

Game
noun
1. an amusement or pastime

Went with 6 because 5 is just too much riding the fence and 4 is closer to the arbitrary side of things at 1. This is on the assumption that the poll is simply measuring preference for frequency of death in games, i.e., overall deadliness. Certainly never fudge dice myself; just prefer to play games (like 13th Age) where the characters are more robust from the get-go, minimizing random kills due to house cats, 10' drops, and strong winds.

Quote from: jhkim;788645On the other hand, I know lots of non-competitive players who play with high lethality - mainly casual, "beer-and-pretzel" gamers who just like playing together socially to kill some orcs, get eaten by tentacled monstrosities, or whatever. When they get killed, they just laugh about it and roll up a new character.

This is exactly where I am in my gaming career.  Having a blast:)

Quote from: jhkim;788645On the other hand, I know lots of non-competitive players who play with high lethality - mainly casual, "beer-and-pretzel" gamers who just like playing together socially to kill some orcs, get eaten by tentacled monstrosities, or whatever. When they get killed, they just laugh about it and roll up a new character.

That's me as a Player. I can really get into playing a character... voices and motivations and whatnot... but that's all 'in the moment' stuff. I don't much care about long term 'character arc' or 'builds'. Every PC death is an opportunity to try on some new costume.

But what's this 'competitive' vs. 'non-competitive' stuff?
It reminds me of the 'casual' vs. 'hardcore' stuff in videogames... where 'casual' is often a pejorative.

Quote from: Simlasa;788765... where 'casual' is often a pejorative.

But conversely, not so much in rpg's. The whole one thing though, imo I doubt unless everyone is playing Paranoia. Another lethal game was Aftermath, with a long chargen process, roll up a character takes two hours, 20 minutes into the game it's a TPK.

Quote from: Old Geezer;788487It's not any "test of manhood" shit.

A game you can't lose isn't a game.  It's a pastime, not a game.  Model railroading is a pastime.  I cannot "lose" at running a train.

I get different things out of running trains with friends than I get out of playing games with friends.  I want a game, including an RPG, to be a "game," and that means there has to be a way to lose.

And "complications" aren't losing; the game is about having adventures, and adding complications means that the player characters have MORE adventures.  So instead of "losing," you reward the players (which is not the same as the player characters) for losing by "adding complications."

I agree, but it's important to point out that one can be a loser in some games without getting your character killed. If my figure remains at (or falls back to) the bottom of the social hierarchy in En Garde!, then I'm not a winner.

The original D&D game form is like Diplomacy (or Monopoly or Risk) in that elimination - in this case of a figure, not the player - is a key element; mere survival is a significant victory.

Some people take that assumpton for granted as a definitive norm for rpgs, but this puts an arbitrary limit on their scope. I don't see it as a fundamental necessity for role-playing. Physically reckless roles are not the only possible ones, violence not the only possible challenge.

Quote from: jhkim;788645The normal way to lose in a wargame is to fail to achieve your goals. The same works perfectly fine in RPGs. Games where you have to eliminate your playing piece when you lose are actually pretty rare.

In my experience, there are a lot of competitive RPG players who prefer low lethality because it means there is more continuity. So if they fail to defeat the supervillain Doctor Hex, then they can adjust and try again with the same characters in a later adventure. Amber is often high competitive and low-lethality, in my experience, as are some superhero games like Champions.

On the other hand, I know lots of non-competitive players who play with high lethality - mainly casual, "beer-and-pretzel" gamers who just like playing together socially to kill some orcs, get eaten by tentacled monstrosities, or whatever. When they get killed, they just laugh about it and roll up a new character.

That's what frp was commonly about when I was introduced in the 1970s. As Mr. Gygax later wrote in one of the AD&D books, it was a passtime, not to be taken very seriously.

Dungeon and wilderness scenarios had a format very easy to have on the shelf, ready for an afternoon's play on short notice. There was a built-in scoring system in the form of "experience" points primarily for securing treasure. As with other point-scoring games, one could compare one's results with previous sessions.

Quote from: Gabriel2;788755Game
noun
1. an amusement or pastime

Notice the number there? That's because words often have multiple, context-sensitive denotations.

Quote from: dragoner;788876The whole one thing though, imo I doubt unless everyone is playing Paranoia.

I don't know about the other '1' voters but I'm not measuring it by frequency of death, just how deadly combat is. It's not a 'meat grinder' if PCs have an opportunity to avoid danger, find less-violent alternatives to complete their goals... don't rush into combats they aren't prepared for.
Random encounters yes, but it's not raining anvils and demons aren't teleporting into the outhouse.

Quote from: Simlasa;788906Random encounters yes, but it's not raining anvils and demons aren't teleporting into the outhouse.

Pardon me while I make some notes for my campaign.

Quote from: Simlasa;788906I don't know about the other '1' voters but I'm not measuring it by frequency of death, just how deadly combat is. It's not a 'meat grinder' if PCs have an opportunity to avoid danger, find less-violent alternatives to complete their goals... don't rush into combats they aren't prepared for.
Random encounters yes, but it's not raining anvils and demons aren't teleporting into the outhouse.

So then what is the number of "raining anvils and demons teleporting into the outhouse"?

Quote from: Simlasa;788906Random encounters yes, but it's not raining anvils and demons aren't teleporting into the outhouse.

Well, it wasn't me , so teleporting demons are the only rational explanation for that stench.

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

I think that's a zero, because no one plays that way... or maybe one game, then no one comes back.

Quote from: Simlasa;788923I think that's a zero, because no one plays that way... or maybe one game, then no one comes back.

There isn't a zero, so if not, it's a one; that's what I'm saying. I won't treat PC's like NPC's, because I'll kill an NPC just to move the story along, no rolling; I'll at least give the players a chance before killing them.

Quote from: dragoner;788933There isn't a zero, so if not, it's a one; that's what I'm saying. I won't treat PC's like NPC's, because I'll kill an NPC just to move the story along, no rolling; I'll at least give the players a chance before killing them.

Whatever. Why not be even more ridiculous and just tell the Players their PCs start off dead... don't even bother rolling them up, they died in a fire before the game started. Go home, no game tonight.
Or even beyond that where we buy the rulebook and immediately set fire to it!
Looks like all us '1' folks are actually playing at around a 6 huh?

Meanwhile, raining anvils is totally playable if you raise the level up high enough and give the PC the 'Dodge Falling Anvils' Feat.

Quote from: Simlasa;788939Looks like all us '1' folks are actually playing at around a 6 huh?

Maybe. I voted five.

What 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."

"Back in the day" (Early 80's) in these parts we had a certain macho fatalism. If you died, but went out in a way that was funny, or bad-ass, or made for a good story, we saw it as a kind of "Winning".

If the player's goal is to have fun then dying can be as much as much "winning" as surviving.

Quote from: Simlasa;788906I don't know about the other '1' voters but I'm not measuring it by frequency of death, just how deadly combat is. It's not a 'meat grinder' if PCs have an opportunity to avoid danger, find less-violent alternatives to complete their goals... don't rush into combats they aren't prepared for.
Random encounters yes, but it's not raining anvils and demons aren't teleporting into the outhouse.

Yeah, 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.

Yeah, the poll isn't so much about frequency of PC mortality than about how much the GM shields the PC from death as a result of their actions and the mechanics.

Of course the two probably bear some correlation.

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. :p

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! :D

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. :p

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.

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?

Quote from: CRKrueger;789179Anyone die in Boomtown yet?

Nope.

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

Well, I'm glad to hear surprise feels consistent in and out of game when you are wandering about with caution thrown to the wind. It gives a consistency to the world. I can't control how players feel, but I can be even handed about what their characters would experience as the average NPC in the same shoes.
;)
Is this about the current in-game situation at Boomtown? I do believe the other players did share some of their intel about the graveyards, if this is about that. Though I believe they also might have glossed over the actual threat into "adventure palatable" translation.

edit: I should add that I am perfectly amenable to players not conveying all material learned to each other, if they wish to keep secrets. Very laissez-faire. Something I learned to respect from the celestial Cold War of IN SJG. It is a very lethal, but open, aspect to my style.

Quote from: CRKrueger;789179Anyone die in Boomtown yet?

Not for want of trying on the part of the adventurers, I can assure you. There's already been quite a few near misses.

As for NPCs, at least eight deaths on day one alone.

Five alone in the afternoon tavern brawl that spills out into the street. That was just unarmed strikes, and would have taken the three fighters out easily if they got in any earlier than the 35th round. They also rode the bleeding edge of starting a full on riot against them by drawing a weapon during that melee.

They were extremely lucky that their efforts to simmer down the angry crowd coincided with one of my two scheduled NPC interventions (and that first would have failed all by itself, too, without their help). The devil's own luck, as that would have been a TPK followed by a hanging of who was left. Within 60+ combatants, many of whom are trained in classes as well, is just death; rolling is a formality by then.

That following night was not much better, as they kept skipping around Death's own hemline.

They are just on day two, and already risked life and limb several times before lunch. Given my finished encounter rolls for the day in their area, I cannot say anything about whether they'll make it to a third day. They've beelined into some deep shit, even after collecting warning information.

... shhh, don't tell them. ;)

Quote from: Opaopajr;789266... you are wandering about with caution thrown to the wind.

Good to know that following any clues or gathering intel, was all pointless.

Quote from: dragoner;789304Good to know that following any clues or gathering intel, was all pointless.

Your gathered clues were not pointless. You just chose something completely different based on the intel. I can't stop that, that would be leading your party, and thus unfair to your free will.

Quote from: Opaopajr;789306Your gathered clues were not pointless. You just chose something completely different based on the intel. I can't stop that, that would be leading your party, and thus unfair to your free will.

Free will? Shirley, you jest. First the baby and then suddenly possessed by demons.

Quote from: dragoner;789310Free will? Shirley, you jest. First the baby and then suddenly possessed by demons.

Well, first the baby & unconscious mother was a random encounter expounded into another random encounter. And you all did very well, especially you abiding by your alignment and getting your friends to help. You could have left the baby's cries alone, assuming someone else will take care of it, but you chose to do the moral thing and be personally involved. I applaud this.

Second, you feel its demons. Currently it is dangerous, yet really is not *that* dangerous. I believe I also alluded to your Acolyte knowledge of this as well during this situation. But I'll have another "Behind the Screen" chat to talk about what you faced after this scene is done. Almost all 5e mechanics & DCs were used in its creation, and far less lethal than will o' wisps.

Also, the majority of you experienced weird stuff as you walked back and then forth along the edge of that new graveyard. Two anomalous experiences each, once for every time you crossed too close by. Further the 3 fighters picked up extra intel last night on the dangers of the two arguing graveyards, especially the new one, and the rise in activity as the new moon approaches. They also spotted a curiosity past the sharp slope. And you yourself were warned by the elders to "beware the forgotten claim down mountain of the graves," (though that was 40 pages ago, IC pt. 1, page 27, post #268. I understand it is a lot to remember). I don't believe though, after splitting your party again, you had a chance to share each other's new intel so soon from the snakebite emergency, so I'll stop there.

There's only so much I can do when players choose to linger there, weird hostility, confusion, and tension bubbling into your heads, and then continue investigating with a 10 minute Detect Magic ritual inside the new graveyard itself. It was brave, I will say that, even so near high noon. But all of that immediate danger is not the real, deep-shit danger I'm talking about...

(... and my name isn't Shirley. :p /obligatory Airplane quote)

I have no interest in "script immunity".