I don't provide any protection from death in my games.  If I want there to be less RISK of death, I use a less-lethal system to begin with.

Quote from: RPGPundit;832616I don't provide any protection from death in my games.  If I want there to be less RISK of death, I use a less-lethal system to begin with.

Matching the system to the desired outcomes?  Insanity!

Please forgive me I haven't read all 11 pages, I only read the original post and then everything from page 7 onwards.

My approach to death depends on the tone and style of game I'm running. When I run a long term fantasy Pathfinder game, I don't care if people die. The dice will land where they land. I do make once exception which is if you go from conscious to dead you get 1 round in which you're considered dying.

If I'm running a highly narrative game then I'll likely go for an alternative.

In a high fantasy, superpowered or science fiction themed game I would be more than happy to include an alternate rule to dying:
Fight On
When you die you you can choose to remain alive but receive a debilitating effect. This could be the loss of an arm, an eye or losing 2 levels. Whatever the effect, it should have a mechanical effect (e.g. can’t use a two-handed weapon, can’t use a second weapon, can’t use a shield, moves at half speed or has disadvantage on wisdom (perception) checks and attack rolls), that can be overcome with time but should represent a significant expenditure of resources to overcome (e.g. the price of a raise dead).

----
In a game where wealth isn't tracked, the significant expenditure would be story related (you get full functionality, but you owe a bad person a big favour or you have an alien piece of technology grafted to you that you don't understand the nature of it).

The reason I wouldn't run this rule in a low fantasy game is because having magical cyborgs running around is counter to the feel of the setting. So a significant penalty would be difficult to overcome making the character unfun to play long term.

Whatever rule I was running I would ensure the players are aware of it at the start and are on board with that approach to the game.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;831667Does a soldier on the battlefield sling his rifle and engage the enemy in hand to hand because it would be more heroic?

I love playing in the D&D genre (I feel it's got enough quirks and derivative games that it genuinely is it's own genre now). I've done so for the past 7 years and I've had a blast. My approach to D&D is that the rules of the universe exist outside of the players and that the players are in a lethal high stakes game where they work togther towards a common goal that involves protecting something they all care about.

The approach I would take to Traveller is completely different. I would find Traveller unsatisfying if I played it like a dungeon crawl. Similarly I would prefer a different style of playing in a superhero game. In a superhero game I'm not looking to play murder hobos or dungeon delvers. I'm looking to play a game of heroic actions where the stakes at play are larger than getting treasure or XP. I want a game that puts narrative before mechanics and we're encouraged to do things not because they're smart but because  they're heroic.

I can enjoy multiple types of roleplaying games that have a fairly wide array of styles. Some people have a narrower range of RPGs they enjoy while some have just as wide a range as me (if not wider), but it's in a different range then mine. For example I don't think i could enjoy Call of Cthulhu. It just doesn't appeal to me.

On an earlier poster's mention of 'play' and 'game', I'll say that to me it's a matter of the role.

Superman isn't at risk of death from much, and is usually more concerned with making the choices he can live with. Most other people, more vulnerable, are not perpetually engaged in activities bringing a high risk of sudden death.

A free ride of risk-free mayhem, slaughtering others in droves, is something some people like a lot as a way to blow off steam. In that context, I'm not sure why they would feel a need to pretend to fool themselves (but really not) that the figures they're manipulating are at risk.

Some characters may well live in worlds in which they know they're part of a story and must survive to appear in the next chapter. That's not my cup of tea, but it's not as far away as taking the perspective of a third party who knows it when they don't -- which pretty well negates the role-playing that is central to the appeal that rpgs hold for me.

The risk of death must always be present and when PCs die players had better be invested enough for it to really bother them.
Actual death however should be rare.

From my current campaign. the party are exploring some catacombs after being attacked by 12 skeletons with 2 minor demons for back up 3 of the 4 party members were at the one more hit and we are dead stage. One demon escaped casting a wall of fire to block his flight. The 3 injured PCs were unable to follow the other PC thought the guy might be back with reinforcements and a tiefling knew he had some fire resistance so he dived through the flames and pursued. He took 5d8 halved but survivied with 3hp left so he engaged the creature.
Death was palpably close - 3rd level rogue versus a demon they knew could cast hellish rebuke and was weilding a firey whip.
One of the other PCs had an unknown potion he drank it and his skin took on the sheen of silvered iron. The player had no idea what this meant but reckoned it gave some protection (in fact a potion of invulnerability they had been carrying for a while that had been randomly rolled) He had 4hp left but he lept through the flames anyway as the rogue was obviously dead in a round. I made him roll 5d8 and only then told him that he took no damage. The two of them beat the demon but only just.

So the key here was that the PCs completed the battle all 1 hit from death their resources expended. Death was a sucessful attack or a single bad choice away from each of them. However, none of them died. That is the sweet point you need to get to. Play the bad guys as well as you can within their own "world knowledge" pull no punches and drive each PC to the precipice but don't kill the but don't make any obvious attempt to save them.

In this campaign we have only had 2 PC deaths and they were killed by the other PCs.

Quote from: jibbajibba;833099The risk of death must always be present and when PCs die players had better be invested enough for it to really bother them.

I don't necessarily agree with this, depending on the genre that's being played. In a high action superhero RPG I would expect death to be next to non-existent and only happen due to reasons of plot (and the character could, at any point in the future, come back to life). However that doesn't mean fights don't have something at stake. However in a high action game I expect those stakes would be:

• Death of civilians and innocent bystanders.
• Escape of the villain.
• The combat being delayed long enough for the villain's plan to work.
• Loss of respect in the community at large.

Since D&D 3rd edition the idea of combat's being random and there being a high risk of death has been de-emphasised in favour of challenge appropriate fights. In D&D 4th edition I knew there was next  to no chance of dying. That didn't stop me from enjoying the campaign though.

It sounds like you're talking from the perspective of dungeon bashing (using D&D 5th edition rules by the look of it). The traditional dungeon bashing as played in the OD&D-AD&D 2nd edition era definitely involved high stakes in each and every fight with death being a very real concern.

However D&D as it's presented in Pathfinder's Adventure Paths, D&D 4th edition's adventures and D&D 5th edition's megamodules, death is no longer the focus of the game. Dungeon bashing occurs. But the stakes aren't "you die" but are instead "You fail and the bad guys win and the world goes down the toilet." Death has been negated to suffering a  minor inconvenience that (depending on the rules) eats into your WBL and gives you an in-game time penalty that potentially translates to plot penalties.

Can you play D&D 5th edition, 4th edition or Pathfinder as a good old dungeon bash? Sure. And depending on the group, the ruleset and how closely the rules are followed you'll have varying degrees of success. But that is no longer the primary focus of the game. The focus of the game is saving the town/kingdom/world/multiverse with dungeon delving being used to pursue that goal. Your character's life isn't on the line, the town/kingdom/world/multiverse is.

Quote from: JohnLynch;833137D&D 5th edition's megamodules, death is no longer the focus of the game. Dungeon bashing occurs. But the stakes aren't "you die" but are instead "You fail and the bad guys win and the world goes down the toilet." Death has been negated to suffering a  minor inconvenience that (depending on the rules) eats into your WBL and gives you an in-game time penalty that potentially translates to plot penalties.

Can you play D&D 5th edition, 4th edition or Pathfinder as a good old dungeon bash? Sure. And depending on the group, the ruleset and how closely the rules are followed you'll have varying degrees of success. But that is no longer the primary focus of the game. The focus of the game is saving the town/kingdom/world/multiverse with dungeon delving being used to pursue that goal. Your character's life isn't on the line, the town/kingdom/world/multiverse is.

Actually. As noted in a older thread here. In 5e you can die appallingly easily. And there is no guarantee of a safety net of a local temple raising you unless the DM places that net there for you. And the Hoard of the Dragon Queen was noted for the early complaints that the very start of the module was way too lethal. Which was bemusingly the whole point of the start. To weam players off the idea that they were invincible. And to get them to think and try methods other than brute force.

I agree though that 5e offers more ways of "death" than physical. Since a catastrophically failed mission can potentially result in the death of the adventurers career or at least their rep. Which could end their adventuring days.

Quote from: JohnLynch;833137I don't necessarily agree with this, depending on the genre that's being played. In a high action superhero RPG I would expect death to be next to non-existent and only happen due to reasons of plot (and the character could, at any point in the future, come back to life). However that doesn't mean fights don't have something at stake. However in a high action game I expect those stakes would be:

• Death of civilians and innocent bystanders.
• Escape of the villain.
• The combat being delayed long enough for the villain's plan to work.
• Loss of respect in the community at large.

Since D&D 3rd edition the idea of combat's being random and there being a high risk of death has been de-emphasised in favour of challenge appropriate fights. In D&D 4th edition I knew there was next  to no chance of dying. That didn't stop me from enjoying the campaign though.

It sounds like you're talking from the perspective of dungeon bashing (using D&D 5th edition rules by the look of it). The traditional dungeon bashing as played in the OD&D-AD&D 2nd edition era definitely involved high stakes in each and every fight with death being a very real concern.

However D&D as it's presented in Pathfinder's Adventure Paths, D&D 4th edition's adventures and D&D 5th edition's megamodules, death is no longer the focus of the game. Dungeon bashing occurs. But the stakes aren't "you die" but are instead "You fail and the bad guys win and the world goes down the toilet." Death has been negated to suffering a  minor inconvenience that (depending on the rules) eats into your WBL and gives you an in-game time penalty that potentially translates to plot penalties.

Can you play D&D 5th edition, 4th edition or Pathfinder as a good old dungeon bash? Sure. And depending on the group, the ruleset and how closely the rules are followed you'll have varying degrees of success. But that is no longer the primary focus of the game. The focus of the game is saving the town/kingdom/world/multiverse with dungeon delving being used to pursue that goal. Your character's life isn't on the line, the town/kingdom/world/multiverse is.

No.

This is the first Dungeon game I have played in 20 years. I am doing it because my players are new to RPGS (well they were 2 years ago) and I have done sandbox Sci Fi, Diceless Fables , Marvel Superhero and wanted to give them experience of a traditional dungeon game so they can make an informed opinion of the sort of game they like.

In all these games even Fables (from the comics, I modded an Amber diceless engine to run it) which has inherent resurrection based on your fame in the mundy world have the risk of death. With Supers when the super evil Dr Whatever is battling the Five Amigos over New York I want to keep the threat of death firmly on the table. The party have more "toys" and the game is stacked in their favour but I will never remove the threat entirely. If Lex Luthor is just trying to frustrate Superman then he devolves into Dr Doofensmirch.
I will always run my NPCs from their in game perspective. Luthor hasn't spent 4 months building a Kryptonium death ray because he doesn't think it can kill superman he is convinced it will work. You have to play the game and his actions from that perspective.

In a fantasy game, I think the risk of death should always be present.  In other games, it MAY be possible that this is taken off the table, or at least reduced to an incredibly rare occurrence.

Quote from: Omega;833141Actually. As noted in a older thread here. In 5e you can die appallingly easily. And there is no guarantee of a safety net of a local temple raising you unless the DM places that net there for you. And the Hoard of the Dragon Queen was noted for the early complaints that the very start of the module was way too lethal. Which was bemusingly the whole point of the start. To weam players off the idea that they were invincible. And to get them to think and try methods other than brute force..

And they then backslid in Rise of Tiamat. In this WOTC has taken a quite explicit approach to not caring about PC death. They combine the DM stacking the deck against the party with directives to not go easy and to kill them ... and then follow it up, in several places, with "but its ok if they die or even if there is a TPK. The Council will raise them."

This is the WORST possible outcome. Killing the party AND making it meaningless. Why even try?

Yay, you're back! Are you doing any more module reviews?

Quote from: bryce0lynch;833512And they then backslid in Rise of Tiamat. In this WOTC has taken a quite explicit approach to not caring about PC death. They combine the DM stacking the deck against the party with directives to not go easy and to kill them ... and then follow it up, in several places, with "but its ok if they die or even if there is a TPK. The Council will raise them."

This is the WORST possible outcome. Killing the party AND making it meaningless. Why even try?

"Jesus had a temporary loss of consciousness for your sins!"

What about killing the party and letting a new party pick up where they left off? Is that bad?

Death is a kind of failure. One of the things players need to do is to accept failure because a lot of the time it makes for a better story. A heroic or tragic death can lead to memorable funerals, eulogies, vows of revenge against the thing that killed their friend, etc. That said, I haven't managed to kill a single character in Shaintar Savage Worlds. I killed Hiraltki but he returned to life from the only rez card in the action deck and I took Grundy's arm, but they managed to regrow it through Greater Healing. But taking Grundy's arm made the fight better as he used his off hand to still manage to kill one of the enemy leaders.

But there is genre appropriate death. Shaintar is a high fantasy game, which can have character death as the group goes up against Flame and Darkness enemies of greater and greater power. Earthdawn was a fantasy and Horror game where people were not just killed, but marked by evil, changed by evil, and could even turn against their own group. We all know how deadly D&D can be. But my next Savage Worlds campaign, Necessary Evil will have the setting rule "Heroes Never Die". Which says heroes and villains do not die even when Incapacitated unless the player wants them to in some sort of heroic sacrifice.   What is appropriate in a fantasy game isn't as genre appropriate in a supers game in this instance.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;833552What about killing the party and letting a new party pick up where they left off? Is that bad?

It's not bad if it's done well.
I've seen/done it in Call of Cthulhu games. Not always the next session... and sometimes from an angle where the Players don't realize right off that they're dealing with the same threat as the earlier campaign... but then they find the remains of their old PCs and their journals... or maybe meet with one of them in a madhouse while doing research for some news story.