TheRPGSite

I've played a lot of Dungeon Crawl Classics, a little bit of Maze Rats, and ran my first session of the Whitehack tonight. In all of them, character death happens pretty often and unpredictably. In the game tonight one of my players got pretty upset after their 1st level warrior-type character was one-shot by the first monster they fought in the dungeon. He was down to 4 HP out of 6, and the monsters were rolling d6s. Of course I rolled a 6 on my first attack. One failed save later and whoop he was dead. We had to end the game there. He threw a bit of a fit. Clearly these games are not a good match for him, or I'm doing something completely wrong.

So yeah, in these high-lethality games, how do you as players or GMs deal with characters dying off so much? Does it disrupt the continuity of your game? Is it something that takes getting used to? Is there anything you can do as a GM to make it more fun or acceptable to the players? Or is total-buy-in the only way for these games to work? Is this even fun?

It's simply a different set of assumptions of level one characters.

In the 77 Holes basic set is openly states that you may start with up to two characters if the DM  allows.

The lethality was just part of the game at early levels. And people rolled with it.

It seems that from 3.x on, the mindset has changed, and even level one characters are only expected to die against "level appropriate" enemies in rare cases.

That being said, someone throwing a "bit of a fit" over a 1st level character death in an OSR game is a bit of a red flag.

I prefer playing with people who are more able to mentally separate that what happens to their make believe PC is not personal, YMMMV.

To cure them of their "my precious" player character mindset, you obviously need to run OSR games more often.

Oh, and the answer is yes.

Yes it is.

I find that having a definitive stance that PC death is on the table to be a great way to sift the wheat from the chaff when it comes to finding people who are cool to game with.

IME it's only fun if the players can do 'combat as war' and work around it. Charging the machinegun is not fun, but working out how to take out the machinegun without a frontal charge can be fun. Stuff like use of hirelings, avoiding fights, and running away. Stuff like getting Monster X to fight Monster Y.

I freaking love the lethality. Both as a GM and player.

DCC did a great job with its funnel. By having 4 PCs per player, there's both crazy lethality left and right, but the chance of having 1-2 survive the adventure is decent. Also, if one player loses all 4, its pretty common for another player to hand off 1 of their survivors.

Personally, I like playing two characters. It was often the norm for us back in the day, especially in games like D&D, Gamma World and Traveller which are all lethal.

Quote from: Trinculoisdead;1112001I've played a lot of Dungeon Crawl Classics, a little bit of Maze Rats, and ran my first session of the Whitehack tonight. In all of them, character death happens pretty often and unpredictably. In the game tonight one of my players got pretty upset after their 1st level warrior-type character was one-shot by the first monster they fought in the dungeon. He was down to 4 HP out of 6, and the monsters were rolling d6s. Of course I rolled a 6 on my first attack. One failed save later and whoop he was dead. We had to end the game there. He threw a bit of a fit. Clearly these games are not a good match for him, or I'm doing something completely wrong.

So yeah, in these high-lethality games, how do you as players or GMs deal with characters dying off so much? Does it disrupt the continuity of your game? Is it something that takes getting used to? Is there anything you can do as a GM to make it more fun or acceptable to the players? Or is total-buy-in the only way for these games to work? Is this even fun?

Did you make it clear what kind of game you were running? Because new players typically come in a set of expectations that they learned from heroic novels, movies, and TV series. They expect to be the heroes of the story, not the red shirts. They also expect to be the hero, from the very first episode/chapter/session, and to continue to play that character until they're tired of it. They expect the world to follow the rule of cool, to reward abysmally stupid actions taken in the name of heroism, and to give them dramatic immunity.

But that's not the game you wanted to run. It's your responsibility as GM to make that distinction clear, but it's not just a matter of saying it's more like Game of Thrones than Lord of the Rings. Not only will they not know exactly what you mean by that, it also won't sink in. Because these are deeply held and largely unconscious expectations, that have been hammered into them throughout their life. So you need to break that mold by making it more visceral.

Maybe have each player roll up a dozen characters. Then tell them that most of those characters are going to die. Since it's a waste of time to get too invested in any of them before the game starts, they're only allowed to write a single line describing each character ("Fighter #3." is acceptable). Maybe set a time limit, in order to make them roll up their characters fast. Then don't let them pick a character for the first session, have them randomly roll.

You can't just tell them, they need to feel it. That's why I changed the character creation process, and gave strict rules. That way the players aren't just listening to a lecture, they're participating in an experience that reinforces the idea that starting characters are disposable, encourages them to stop identifying too closely with a character, and forces them to treat characters as interchangeable. That's just one approach, there are many. You just have to find one that works for you and your group.

This player has been present in all my DCC and MCC games. They eventually came to dislike the lethality so we stopped playing those. I made a mistake by bringing the Whitehack, which is more lethal than DCC from what I can tell, to the table and expecting it to go well. But in this thread I didn't want to go over my mistakes, only to hear other's experiences. To see what's working at other GM's tables.

Quote from: Trinculoisdead;1112001I've played a lot of Dungeon Crawl Classics, a little bit of Maze Rats, and ran my first session of the Whitehack tonight. In all of them, character death happens pretty often and unpredictably. In the game tonight one of my players got pretty upset after their 1st level warrior-type character was one-shot by the first monster they fought in the dungeon. He was down to 4 HP out of 6, and the monsters were rolling d6s. Of course I rolled a 6 on my first attack. One failed save later and whoop he was dead. We had to end the game there. He threw a bit of a fit. Clearly these games are not a good match for him, or I'm doing something completely wrong.

So yeah, in these high-lethality games, how do you as players or GMs deal with characters dying off so much? Does it disrupt the continuity of your game? Is it something that takes getting used to? Is there anything you can do as a GM to make it more fun or acceptable to the players? Or is total-buy-in the only way for these games to work? Is this even fun?

In the '70s, that tabletop game style was the only one around. Most players didn't know better. A handful of them came up with new game styles of their own. So many game styles to pick from now. Adventure game players still prefer the OSR-ish books though.

I ask players about game systems and settings before starting any kind of game session with them. I also have a house rules list that I show them, so that all the players are on the same page.

Yes. I love the lethality in older or OSR games because it teaches strategy and tactics to the Players. While screaming "Charge!" and committing to a full frontal assault is a tactic, it is a poor one with a high chance of character death in those games. With the real chance of character death being present, when a character levels up in an old school fantasy game it actually means something. The leveling process doesn't feel like earning a series of participation trophies, but a real accomplishment.

When I was introducing players to 5e D&D I made sure they were aware that the system was alot more lethal than prior even with the boosts in HP PCs get at the start. Very akin to BX D&D with a better safety net. And they played carefully and did alot of sneaking and tons of trickery. Resorting to combat only as needed.

The main thing I tell players in a lethal system is that as long as they are playing well and not doing blatantly stupid things. There is usually some option if a character goes down. Even if it is as, maybee,  simple as "haul body back to a temple to have them raised." If they know of such a place and can afford or haggle the raise fee. Otherwise they are going to have to hunt one ASAP or lose the member. And if they really want to save a character then even at that point there may be options if they can think of them or find them. Quest for an item that can raise the dead. Find an alternative like reincarnate. Travel to the afterlife and petition some god to allow the lost member to return.

And failing all that. Roll new character. Sometimes dead is dead for a character and you move on.

No problem with high-risk of death as a referee or player, but yeah, everyone needs to be on the same page before the game starts.

OSRs are lethal, but not every OSR game is equally lethal.  I like how The Black Hack 2e handles things - when a PC drops to 0 hit points, a d6 is rolled, but there is only a 1 in 6 chance of actual death.  But the other options include things such as being maimed, disfigured, etc.  So its not as lethal as, say, D&D B/X, but players still need to be very cautious as there are definitely consequences to dropping to 0 HP.  I think this range of consequences is more fun than just constant death.

Quote from: Omega;1112016When I was introducing players to 5e D&D I made sure they were aware that the system was alot more lethal than prior even with the boosts in HP PCs get at the start.

While I've seen TPKs in 5e, it's really not that deadly once you level past the possibility of instant death (exceed the character's max HP past zero) from a critical hit, and players reach competence with the system. I've seen TPKs and a few high level deaths (disintegrate) but outside of those, once you have raise dead characters are less likely to remain dead - and no long term consequences or limit on raise dead (such as maximum based on CON, or even decreasing CON, or system shock giving even high CON characters a chance of failing).

When I was first lurking here, there was a thread in which gleichman described the Hamster Effect - deadliness for low level characters, the "hamsters" - which in some cases was apparently the only real deadliness in "lethal" campaigns:

Quote from: gleichman;738969I'm wondering why they are saying one thing ("death is near!") when the truth of the matter is that death has never even cast his shadow over the game (except for hamsters).

Deadliness just means the players have to learn how to deal with it.

Back when I ran a 1e campaign, about 10 years ago, we had one brand new player, he lost a character in each of the first two sessions. One or the other involved walking into an abandoned tower, having a spider drop down onto him, one failed poison save later, dead. But the group learned to look up and check the ceilings after that.

I think it was the magic user player who suffered the most character deaths -- four or five, I think. The last one actually made me sad. He arrived late to the session, and the group was trying to work out how to activate a magic carpet. The others told him what they'd tried so far, and he immediately jumped on the carpet and tried a particular command word. I look at the player sadly, gathered my resolve, and let him know that the carpet promptly rolled him up and began smothering him.

Nobody had bothered to mention to him that they had acquired the carpet from a devil ...

In any event, that group became expert at tactical coordination, maximising their effectiveness, checking for dangers and dealing with threats in the most expedient fashion -- because they had to get good at that stuff to survive. It was a lot of fun seeing that happen.

Celebrate.

I keep a Roles of the Dead

[ATTACH=CONFIG]3951[/ATTACH]

Yeah 5e is nothing as deadly as these other games I've mentioned. No comparison.

I'm glad other groups can make something fun out of it, like having a list on the wall. My list would drape across the floor, but we've played a lot of DCC funnels.

I like these games a lot, but I hate having to kill off characters now. Makes me sick at heart just thinking about it. It's been so long since I had a player who got into the spirit of it, and for a long time now I just feel as though everyone thinks I'm just punishing them or enjoying their "failure". I hate it. I'm just trying to run the game fairly and follow the rules. And it's impossible for me to try to make it fun or memorable or interesting if I'm cringing on the inside whenever I roll a critical hit. I guess I can't play any of these any more.

Quote from: Trinculoisdead;1112001I've played a lot of Dungeon Crawl Classics, a little bit of Maze Rats, and ran my first session of the Whitehack tonight. In all of them, character death happens pretty often and unpredictably. In the game tonight one of my players got pretty upset after their 1st level warrior-type character was one-shot by the first monster they fought in the dungeon. He was down to 4 HP out of 6, and the monsters were rolling d6s. Of course I rolled a 6 on my first attack. One failed save later and whoop he was dead. We had to end the game there. He threw a bit of a fit. Clearly these games are not a good match for him, or I'm doing something completely wrong.

So yeah, in these high-lethality games, how do you as players or GMs deal with characters dying off so much? Does it disrupt the continuity of your game? Is it something that takes getting used to? Is there anything you can do as a GM to make it more fun or acceptable to the players? Or is total-buy-in the only way for these games to work? Is this even fun?

IME it can be fun. For a while. It runs the risk of becoming arbitarily deadly, which is amusing the first few times, but gets old quick.

Once a character gets past 1st level, I think lethality drops significantly. When I was running DCC, I had a lot of characters die in the funnel, but when they got to about 2nd-3rd level, I don't think we ever had a character death after that.

I run Dark Sun pretty lethal, 0 HP = dead. No saves or negative HPs or anything like that. Notably Dark Sun had the character tree rule where you make up 4 characters, so that you have a spare character handy to pull into an adventure if the one you were playing got killed.

It sounds like your friend was a bad sport. If he lost his cool over his 1st level character dying, I can't imagine how he'd handle losing a 15th level character that he'd been playing for year or so...

Quote from: rawma;1112027While I've seen TPKs in 5e, it's really not that deadly once you level past the possibility of instant death (exceed the character's max HP past zero) from a critical hit, and players reach competence with the system. I've seen TPKs and a few high level deaths (disintegrate) but outside of those, once you have raise dead characters are less likely to remain dead - and no long term consequences or limit on raise dead (such as maximum based on CON, or even decreasing CON, or system shock giving even high CON characters a chance of failing).

When I was first lurking here, there was a thread in which gleichman described the Hamster Effect - deadliness for low level characters, the "hamsters" - which in some cases was apparently the only real deadliness in "lethal" campaigns:

Ah yes that old fallacy.

Actually even at high level death can come from straight up combat due to how the system works. Once someone is down they are appallingly vulnerable even with various protections. And even at high level and with the double pre-3e HP. There are things that can take them down. That is one of the strengths and weaknesses of 5e. It has threat all the way to level 20. But it has threats all the way to level 20. Some don't want threat at all. Others want sometimes stupidly more threat to the point there is really no point in playing. And how much threat there is in the game can vary massively from table to table depending on playstyle. Which has been true from the very start of D&D.

Of course it's fun. OSR-style games really put a huge onus on player skill; it doesn't matter what the character sheet says, if you're not using your brain your character will die. If you have lazy players who just want to roll dice and not fully engage with creative solutions to problems, OSR games are not a good fit. I got REALLY tired of the rolling dice crap real quick during the last 5th edition game I played. No one was even legitimately trying, they were just hoping to get a good roll. That is boring. Give me high lethality over that nonsense.

If you can make it to about 3rd or 4th level in AD&D or B/X, your character is going to die if you're stupid. Rarely will luck factor into it at that point because by then you should already know how to approach challenges in the game. If the DM removes the high fatality rate at low level, the players never learn anything and high levels become empty and lame. Hell, a level of 1st level characters can take out pretty much any monster if they're not stupid.

Right, some want to really just play a board game.

Quote from: Omega;1112055Right, some want to really just play a board game.

I played Candyland with my 4 year old daughter yesterday. We had a good time, and there is literally zero skill involved. Candyland is not a good RPG.

I want lethal dangers in a game because it often makes Players think twice before starting combats... gets them looking for other ways to solve problems, which is where the real fun is for me anyway.
I've played games that lacked any real danger and people fell into playing bullies... and idiots who never planned anything because they knew they could just rush in, guns blasting, and get away with it.
Plus, combats are boring if you KNOW you are likely to win regardless... just an exercise in dice rolling, dragging out the inevitable. Combat just isn't exciting unless there is some level of desperation/consequences to it... death/wounding being the most immediate.

Quote from: S'mon;1112005IME it's only fun if the players can do 'combat as war' and work around it. Charging the machinegun is not fun, but working out how to take out the machinegun without a frontal charge can be fun. Stuff like use of hirelings, avoiding fights, and running away. Stuff like getting Monster X to fight Monster Y.

Hirelings are key if you want to be proactive about avoiding death. But keep in mind their morale. I managed to keep all but one of my hirelings alive so far in the B/X campaign I am part of. The other two PCs haven't had good luck and have gone through two complete sets of hirelings. Some fights we have 11 or more combatants.

This thread comes close to a thread I had considered starting myself, so I'll try to contribute.

There seem to be two large segments of RPG players; those who understand that character death is always a possibility, and those who want their characters to live forever.

I admit, it's not fun to lose a character you enjoy playing; but it's a game, and you can't always "win".  Some people get caught up in the idea that their character is a hero, and should therefore always "win" somehow.  How can their heroic character die?  They are the star of the show.

Ok, taking a deep breath now.....

Your character has to earn that shit, bitch!!!

Quote from: Trinculoisdead;1112045Yeah 5e is nothing as deadly as these other games I've mentioned. No comparison.

I'm glad other groups can make something fun out of it, like having a list on the wall. My list would drape across the floor, but we've played a lot of DCC funnels.

I like these games a lot, but I hate having to kill off characters now. Makes me sick at heart just thinking about it. It's been so long since I had a player who got into the spirit of it, and for a long time now I just feel as though everyone thinks I'm just punishing them or enjoying their "failure". I hate it. I'm just trying to run the game fairly and follow the rules. And it's impossible for me to try to make it fun or memorable or interesting if I'm cringing on the inside whenever I roll a critical hit. I guess I can't play any of these any more.

I don't know, I've had very few character deaths in the games I run. I think that there's a dimension that's missing within the text of the rules which is vital to running games that are this life/death binary. I don't know if other people use it, but I sure as hell do: I call it the "Are You Sure About That?" principle.

Works like this: instead of the player's declaration of action ever immediately triggering the roll that will kill them, it triggers me pausing right before they commit to it and explaining to them exactly what they're doing (because they fucked up somewhere if they think what they're doing is a good idea).

I'm not coy with like "Are you SUUUUURE?" I just explain to them that they're thrusting a dagger into a sleeping ogre and their character understands how suicidally stupid that is, even if I've failed to convey it through my description. "Your character understands this amorphous eye-monster's anatomy *might not* be susceptible to mortal steel *at all*, and your plan, just to recap, is to, and I'm quoting here, 'stab it in the nard-stalks'. You're clear this is what you're committing to?"

"You haven't carefully examined the door to the ancient lich king's treasure vault; are you committing to yanking it straight open?"

"You're just gonna blunder across the checkerboard floor in the mad wizard's palace, stomping your big stupid feet all over the illustriously polished tiling?"

"Just gonna put your hand right on the glowing green orb radiating evil, eh?"

The rule serves to help align the player's interactions with the character's perspective; it's not so much a safety net as a communication tool, something to draw the players attention to their own recklessness.

Another habit I needed to break was the 3.5-acquired habit of filtering every fucking action through a die roll. Get that out of your head: if a normal person could reasonably do it, it just doesn't require a roll. And it certainly doesn't require risking your life. Like, if instead of swinging their sword at the ogre, they just cut the rope on a chandelier? There's no roll required: you're hitting a stationary target with a battle-ready weapon, the only dice rolling should be damage dice to determine how crushed the ogre's skull is.

Finally, I try to keep in mind that a 1 Hd wizard should be able to cleverly survive nearly everything you can encounter in D&D. Players ar smart; after a bit of experience, they'll learn stuff like "Don't get into a situation that you can't run away from". If you lean into this naturally-emergent, cautious and strategic play, characters won't be getting into fights unless they've got a good chance of not merely surviving, but winning. They'll flee. They'll negotiate. They'll drop food. They'll bluff. They'll set traps. They'll trick enemies into fighting each other. It's reached a point in my games where if initiative is getting rolled, the players are either about to curb-stomp something or die; there's very little else (sometimes they get cocky, you see).

Anyway, thanks for coming to my ted talk.

Quote from: Trinculoisdead;1112012This player has been present in all my DCC and MCC games. They eventually came to dislike the lethality so we stopped playing those. I made a mistake by bringing the Whitehack, which is more lethal than DCC from what I can tell, to the table and expecting it to go well. But in this thread I didn't want to go over my mistakes, only to hear other's experiences. To see what's working at other GM's tables.

As far as my campaign go, I run things as a sandbox which gives players a lot more information and freedom about what risks to take and when. There is no expectation from me that they do anything at a particular moment. The general pattern is that players roleplay a bit gain some allies (usually hirelings), gain some info (like recon) and then do what they want to do. Usually forming a plan that gives them the initial advantage.

It also helps that

1) I have magic items shops and low level parties can keep one or two healing potion on hand.
2) I don't have death at 0 hit points. But instead have a rule that you go unconscious at 0 and die at -3 hit point. The threshold lowers by -3 hit point per level until it reaches negative constitution. So if you have a 15 con at 5th level you won't die until you hit -15 hit points.

Back in the day I used AD&D 1st's -10 rule and always thought that death at 0 was stupid.

These two rules don't make low level combat any less risky. What it does rewards party that plan well and give them a chance at recovering a fallen teammate.

Not dying is fun. Dying, not so much. But for not dying to be fun, there has to be some appreciable chance that your character will die.

Quote from: Azraele;1112067I don't know, I've had very few character deaths in the games I run. I think that there's a dimension that's missing within the text of the rules which is vital to running games that are this life/death binary. I don't know if other people use it, but I sure as hell do: I call it the "Are You Sure About That?" principle.

Works like this: instead of the player's declaration of action ever immediately triggering the roll that will kill them, it triggers me pausing right before they commit to it and explaining to them exactly what they're doing (because they fucked up somewhere if they think what they're doing is a good idea).

I'm not coy with like "Are you SUUUUURE?" I just explain to them that they're thrusting a dagger into a sleeping ogre and their character understands how suicidally stupid that is, even if I've failed to convey it through my description. "Your character understands this amorphous eye-monster's anatomy *might not* be susceptible to mortal steel *at all*, and your plan, just to recap, is to, and I'm quoting here, 'stab it in the nard-stalks'. You're clear this is what you're committing to?"

"You haven't carefully examined the door to the ancient lich king's treasure vault; are you committing to yanking it straight open?"

"You're just gonna blunder across the checkerboard floor in the mad wizard's palace, stomping your big stupid feet all over the illustriously polished tiling?"

"Just gonna put your hand right on the glowing green orb radiating evil, eh?"

The rule serves to help align the player's interactions with the character's perspective; it's not so much a safety net as a communication tool, something to draw the players attention to their own recklessness.

Another habit I needed to break was the 3.5-acquired habit of filtering every fucking action through a die roll. Get that out of your head: if a normal person could reasonably do it, it just doesn't require a roll. And it certainly doesn't require risking your life. Like, if instead of swinging their sword at the ogre, they just cut the rope on a chandelier? There's no roll required: you're hitting a stationary target with a battle-ready weapon, the only dice rolling should be damage dice to determine how crushed the ogre's skull is.

Finally, I try to keep in mind that a 1 Hd wizard should be able to cleverly survive nearly everything you can encounter in D&D. Players ar smart; after a bit of experience, they'll learn stuff like "Don't get into a situation that you can't run away from". If you lean into this naturally-emergent, cautious and strategic play, characters won't be getting into fights unless they've got a good chance of not merely surviving, but winning. They'll flee. They'll negotiate. They'll drop food. They'll bluff. They'll set traps. They'll trick enemies into fighting each other. It's reached a point in my games where if initiative is getting rolled, the players are either about to curb-stomp something or die; there's very little else (sometimes they get cocky, you see).

Anyway, thanks for coming to my ted talk.

This is some good and important tips, I just understand that they don't always work. Players can be incredibly dumb, even when the consequences are explained to them. Sometimes Players just do the suicidal thing "for the lulz".

In D&D based games of this type death comes often and quick at the lower levels. Getting a character to higher levels where they are much more likely to survive an entire campaign is part of the challenge and luck. You really should become too attached to characters early on in the campaign. I've found that this tends to lead to longer running games because once you get a few levels under your belt your more willing to stick with the game (after all you earned those levels and they can take awhile to get).

In general high danger combat systems I've always found to be more fun because in those systems combat is something you stay engaged in (even in slower systems) because you need to keep an eye on everything to stay alive. If your playing a safer system or just under a GM who bows to the current line of thought online then you have no reason to not zone out during combat or play with you phone since you're pretty much guaranteed to survive everything.

Dying a lot can be fun if you learn from it--and then stop dying a lot.  Or at least, not dying so much, as it can be a gradual process, and there is always the chance that things turn into a train wreck.  

Part of the point of low levels in a old school style is that you get to learn those lessons before you have a lot of time and imagination invested in the character.  Thus to get maximum enjoyment out of that style, it really helps to have a "develop in play" mindset, where the low powered characters do not have a back story yet.  Heck, they've barely got a name and a hint of a personality.  If they die quick, people might remember them for that, but it is the ones that make it, and how they did it, that become the most interesting.  

Don't get me wrong.  The idea of a funnel is hilarious even if you played it as only that.  But unless everyone in the group is into that kind of funny in and of itself--Ha ha!  Black Bart VI died just like III--then even repeated attempts with low powered characters should see some reduction in death rates eventually.

Quote from: jeff37923;1112071This is some good and important tips, I just understand that they don't always work. Players can be incredibly dumb, even when the consequences are explained to them. Sometimes Players just do the suicidal thing "for the lulz".

Granted; this isn't meant to be foolproof. Actually, quite the opposite: the deadliness suffered by fools is meant to serve as a messy demonstration to the more prudent players.

Should I retell the tale on how my small group suffered tpk by loose dirt?

Quote from: Bren;1112070Not dying is fun. Dying, not so much. But for not dying to be fun, there has to be some appreciable chance that your character will die.

Exactly. It comes down to whether you want your campaign to feel like e.g. an actual safari to Africa, or a vacation to Disney's Animal Kingdom. Some people just want an imaginary amusement park where the rides look scary but they're perfectly safe. Other people want there to be a chance you'll get eaten by the lion.

I've found that most people come to enjoy actual "safari" style play more, but only once they've learned not to go to sleep among a pride of lions.

Quote from: Trinculoisdead;1112001So yeah, in these high-lethality games, how do you as players or GMs deal with characters dying off so much? Does it disrupt the continuity of your game?

I don't run campaigns where the storyline depends on one PC. Also, D&D has Raise Dead so death isn't always permanent versus other RPGs. The only continuity disruption is weaving the new PC into the game, but I don't make it a big deal and create reasons to swiftly introduce them.

Let's say a bunch of 1st level noobs are wandering a dungeon and half the party gets slain. The other players tootle off for 10-15 minutes to make new PCs and they can be easily found wandering the dungeon themselves, half their own friends also slain so now the new and old PCs need to band together. Or they are found as captives. Or they are were trapped and starving. Or they were sent by the patron with hirelings because the local shaman had a dream the mission was in danger. Or whatever it takes to get the new PCs into the game so we can keep the momentum going.  

Quote from: Trinculoisdead;1112001Is it something that takes getting used to?

Probably for new players.

But players who throw fits and end game sessions for any reason need to fuck off.

Gaming is leisure time for the whole table. If one person ruins the time for the rest, that clown gets replaced.

Quote from: Trinculoisdead;1112001Is there anything you can do as a GM to make it more fun or acceptable to the players?

Be upfront with the players about the game and the expectations of lethality.

Do your best to smartly bring their new PCs into the game swiftly in a believable manner.

Be liberal with rewards so survival and victory means something.

Quote from: Trinculoisdead;1112001Or is total-buy-in the only way for these games to work? Is this even fun?

I believe total-buy-in is necessary for many RPGs.

Definitely for lethal games. Definitely for horror games. Definitely for any setting requiring setting knowledge. Definitely for any setting that's non-standard.

I'm very upfront about my campaigns so everyone knows what's up and they can decide whether or not to join.

Quote from: Omega;1112055Right, some want to really just play a board game.

How? If they shit themselves when their PC dies, how do they handle being beaten by an opponent and losing the game?

Even cooperative boardgames can be lost. Competitive boardgames have [Total Players -1] losers at the table.

Quote from: Azraele;1112067I'm not coy with like "Are you SUUUUURE?"

I do this at convention games with players who don't know me.

However, for the "Are you SUUUURE?" to work as a thinking/teaching tool, it's important to ask that when their plan is totally safe and there's no actual danger. Otherwise, its just you telling them NO and redirecting them like toddlers.

Them: "We open the door."
Me: "The one with the burnt runes and bloody handprint?"
Them: "Uh...we look at it more. Can we read the runes?"
Me: "The runes aren't carved, they're freshly scratched deep into the door and the bloody print looks fresh too. [Clatter dice] None of you are familiar with these runes, the cleric thinks its a part of a demonic ritual."
Them: "Uh...we open the door."
Me: "It opens."
Them: "Really???"
Me: "Yeah, it opens and there's another dark hallway beyond."
Them: "Anything happens with the runes or the blood?"
Me: [Clatter dice] "Nothing obvious, but who knows?"
Them: "Okay, we head into the hallway."
 
[FYI, the evil wizard who did the blood ritual knows that door has been opened, and begins to prepare his defenses...]

Quote from: Bren;1112070Not dying is fun. Dying, not so much. But for not dying to be fun, there has to be some appreciable chance that your character will die.

Exactly!

Quote from: Snowman0147;1112083Should I retell the tale on how my small group suffered tpk by loose dirt?

Post the link! That's a great story!

Coming from someone who ran a sandbox west-marches campaign that saw the death of over 60 player characters, including 3 TPKs, I can agree that buy in is important, but more important is how the campaign is set up in the first place.

A few anecdotes from that campaign to help demonstrate an ideal and less than ideal approach.

One player played smart, though took risks from time to time. He embraced the lethality of the campaign, losing 2 or 3 characters along the way. He was the most active player in group. His characters were simple concepts, veteran fighter, esoteric elf, roguish vagabond. What he lacked in character concept he instead invested in planning and working out solutions to problems that were happening in the present.

Another player put a lot of thought into his character, about his history and past. This player created an antagonist for his character and wanted to have a confrontation with said antagonist one day. Unfortunately this would never happen, because after about 8 sessions his character was buried in sand and suffocated to death. He made another character but it was obvious his heart wasn't in it. He made a mistake and lost his second character early. He stopped playing.

You can set expectations all you want, and follow through with those expectations by having characters die. I even told new players that they should not write character backgrounds, because everyone was an adventurer and their goal was finding treasure and discovering the world... Players should be dealing with the problems as they come upon them, not turning up to a campaign with a laundry list already. Regardless, some players are just going to take death badly, in fact most players do. You can try and coach players into seeing the game past a character's death, but ultimately it's up to them how they decide they want to play.

Issues in the campaign became more prevalent when story became more of the focus instead of the treasure finding aspect we started with. When the endgame scenario was taking place characters were becoming more integral to the plot, and losing them would certainly be more detrimental than before. It was only at this stage that I, the referee, felt apprehension in having a character die.

I can only recommend that when the dm\referee sets up an OSR style game and they want it to be deadly (and i believe it should), they need to find a way to disassociate the story from the players in a way that the players can still alter and interact with the story, but they do not become the story. I'd recommend a more episodic approach to adventure design, or a vast mega-dungeon environment. The goal isn't clear to begin with, and may just be to get rich. Later, the players can create their own goals based on what they discover, but even then, these personal goals should not be the primary focus, rather the world that exists around the players should be, and the player's goals stem from the world. With this approach, it's much easier to slot in different characters week to week.

If you set up a campaign where players have to write a long backstory, and goals from the start, then you're setting them up for disappointment and later when you need to insert a new player character into such a group, it is harder to do so. Players are limited to the types of characters they can bring to the already existing story.

I'm going to address your post backwards because I think it'll make my point make more sense, I hope that's not too annoying.

Quote from: Trinculoisdead;1112001Is this even fun?

Different people have different kinds of fun. Lots of people have already said lethality is fun for them, so I won't belabor that. From a theory of fun perspective, part of enjoying lethality is (I think) derived from the impact of decisions. Balancing the impact is the tricky part. Too lethal and players conclude there's no point in trying and give up. Not lethal enough and it's boring because there's no risk. Feeling like there is a challenge to overcome and then overcoming it is fun too, particularly for certain personalities. Roguelike video games hit that idea of punishing, challenging fun pretty squarely. "Nintendo hard" from back in the NES days as well. It's good for something to be hard enough to feel like a real accomplishment.

Not everyone has this kind of fun, and not all of the time. Sometimes even people who like lethal games want something less risky and more escapist.

Quote from: Trinculoisdead;1112001Is there anything you can do as a GM to make it more fun or acceptable to the players? Or is total-buy-in the only way for these games to work?

I'm not an expert, wise GM or anything, so take this with a grain of salt as academic theorycrafting, because it is: this seems like a good discussion for session 0. My hunch is that if players have some expectation set of what the game is like, especially if they are newish to the system, that'll help the badfeels. As Antiquation!'s amazing "worst session" thread ( https://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?41311-What-s-the-worst-session-you-ve-ever-run ) shows, sometimes even when you've done all you can, people just straight up tilt without it having anything to do with anything you did wrong. Humans are occasionally irrational and unreasonable.

I started to write up something about an analogous clash over a particular Magic format, but I realized this problem actually generalizes all the way out at least to the psychographics, if not farther. You might find this article about Magic psychographics to be interesting ( https://magic.wizards.com/en/articles/archive/making-magic/timmy-johnny-and-spike-2013-12-03 ). Disagreements happened all the time, particularly between Timmy (make big dudes smash things!) and Johnny (do the weirdest shit with the rules that I can) versus Spike (win at all costs). Timmy and Johnny often feel like Spike ruins their fun and isn't great to play against. Spike thinks Timmy and occasionally Johnny's rickety, unreliable, unchallenging decks are snoozefests. Timmy and sometimes Johnny also tend to be the ones who introduce lots of personal, individual rules about what "real" or "fair" Magic is. Spike doesn't care -- he's out to make the best use of the rules that he can. This can get ugly, and I think it's a similar origin of disagreement.

Quote from: Trinculoisdead;1112001So yeah, in these high-lethality games, how do you as players or GMs deal with characters dying off so much? Does it disrupt the continuity of your game? Is it something that takes getting used to?

I think setting expectations helps, and there is probably a period of adjustment for people who haven't played that style before. As for continuity, I haven't really thought about it before, just kind of rolled with it when it happened, but I see two general mechanisms: 1) the same sort of "how did the party meet" storycrafting as was at the start of the campaign; 2) drawing on books/films/real life responses to when people die. If the healer bit it and now the party's mission is at stake, someone in the setup will have an interest in filling that void, right? If the party leader kicks the bucket, that's a power vacuum to fill...

Quote from: Trinculoisdead;1112001I've played a lot of Dungeon Crawl Classics, a little bit of Maze Rats, and ran my first session of the Whitehack tonight. In all of them, character death happens pretty often and unpredictably. In the game tonight one of my players got pretty upset after their 1st level warrior-type character was one-shot by the first monster they fought in the dungeon. He was down to 4 HP out of 6, and the monsters were rolling d6s. Of course I rolled a 6 on my first attack. One failed save later and whoop he was dead. We had to end the game there. He threw a bit of a fit. Clearly these games are not a good match for him, or I'm doing something completely wrong.

It also could've been a bad day?

But at the end of the day, it's just a sheet of paper. Throwing a fit and ruining the game for the party isn't cool. Poor RPG sportsmanship I guess?

Responding to the OP:

Many players come in with death-averse expectations.

If you set up their expectations that these are games where characters can easily die, and it's expected that may likely happen even if they do nothing wrong, and that what happens then is they take over one of the surviving NPCs in the group, and/or start with several characters, and/or the whole party dies and a new party is started out, THEN it may not be so shocking and upsetting to them.

If they can't get over it, maybe the game type is not for them.

I've never played any of the modern OSR games, but I did play basic D&D and AD&D (now referred to as 1e) with high PC death counts. Some of them were fun, but many others were not. I tend to find highly lethal games more interesting in contemporary/near-future gaming or in certain fantasy and sci-fi settings (like Warhammer and WH40K) and less satisfying with typical D&D fantasy where I'm OK with more forgiving combat rules. That may be one of the reasons I don't play (or buy) OSR products.

Quote from: Razor 007;1112066This thread comes close to a thread I had considered starting myself, so I'll try to contribute.

There seem to be two large segments of RPG players; those who understand that character death is always a possibility, and those who want their characters to live forever.

I'd make it even more general than that: there are those who play for a challenge that's very flavorful while it challenges unforgivably, and there are those who want an escape from an everyday life that usually has more strikeouts than home runs.  What these two groups want out of a D&D game (or whatever RGP) is entirely different and contradictory.  

The first group isn't a fan of fudging in any direction - for them or against them.  They want objective neutral risk which is possible to identify, avoid, and possibly turn to their favor if playing with creativity and skill.  They're willing to risk the time they've spent with a character to this point for that experience, and the out-of-game feeling that comes with surfing it.

The second group is a fan of fudging, although that may not be owned up to - part of what appeals to the 2nd group is the pretense of risk.  But only the pretense (although they may be willing to trade a character for big damn hero bragging rights).  While there is a third group who enjoys both styles while recognizing they're not-the-same, group 2 will never get around to enjoying games truly purpose-built for group 1.  Group 2 people usually aren't comfortable saying this overtly, because they do like the idea of playing a game allowing lethality while their DM sits behind the screen madly making fudge like a keebler elf on speed.  Succeeding in a game environment that (in theory) allows fatalities absolutely enhances the illusion they're looking for; any DM-talk to the contrary is also hopefully, merely, the pretense that sets the stage.

Both groups support RPG companies, and will share the hobby.  So if you as DM have group 2 people and you want to play games with those people instead of finding a different tribe - make fudge.  Don't try to run a fudge-free campaign and think it will go over.  I can't run group 2 games, but tastefully discrete fudge is the only solution for group 2 people using an old school rule set for more than a one-shot.

Quote from: EOTB;1112122I'd make it even more general than that: there are those who play for a challenge that's very flavorful while it challenges unforgivably, and there are those who want an escape from an everyday life that usually has more strikeouts than home runs.  What these two groups want out of a D&D game (or whatever RGP) is entirely different and contradictory.  

The first group isn't a fan of fudging in any direction - for them or against them.  They want objective neutral risk which is possible to identify, avoid, and possibly turn to their favor if playing with creativity and skill.  They're willing to risk the time they've spent with a character to this point for that experience, and the out-of-game feeling that comes with surfing it.

The second group is a fan of fudging, although that may not be owned up to - part of what appeals to the 2nd group is the pretense of risk.  But only the pretense (although they may be willing to trade a character for big damn hero bragging rights).  While there is a third group who enjoys both styles while recognizing they're not-the-same, group 2 will never get around to enjoying games truly purpose-built for group 1.  Group 2 people usually aren't comfortable saying this overtly, because they do like the idea of playing a game allowing lethality while their DM sits behind the screen madly making fudge like a keebler elf on speed.  Succeeding in a game environment that (in theory) allows fatalities absolutely enhances the illusion they're looking for; any DM-talk to the contrary is also hopefully, merely, the pretense that sets the stage.

Both groups support RPG companies, and will share the hobby.  So if you as DM have group 2 people and you want to play games with those people instead of finding a different tribe - make fudge.  Don't try to run a fudge-free campaign and think it will go over.  I can't run group 2 games, but tastefully discrete fudge is the only solution for group 2 people using an old school rule set for more than a one-shot.

I wonder if this is part of the larger problem in my game group right now. Because even in non-lethal systems, or in board-games, there's a friction that arises when certain players are losing in the case of a board-game, or their characters are failing rolls in the case of RPGs. Any significant set-back or antagonism on my part borders on the edge of players getting upset. It's uncomfortable, and bothers me greatly as the GM and therefore the player with the most responsibility for how the game goes.

Perhaps some of my players are simply group 2 people: they want to play heroic characters who, like in a movie, go up against tough odds, but who ultimately succeed no matter what.

Perhaps that's disingenuous in my particular case, but I think that sort of player certainly exists.

Quote from: Trinculoisdead;1112123I wonder if this is part of the larger problem in my game group right now. Because even in non-lethal systems, or in board-games, there's a friction that arises when certain players are losing in the case of a board-game, or their characters are failing rolls in the case of RPGs. Any significant set-back or antagonism on my part borders on the edge of players getting upset. It's uncomfortable, and bothers me greatly as the GM and therefore the player with the most responsibility for how the game goes.

If they're getting upset I think that goes beyond the basic style preferences, though they do sound like group 2 to me overall.  I won't play with people invested in an outcome to that degree, regardless of which style they prefer.  Getting upset over lets pretend is a sign of life out of balance, and I'm not going to let someone like that drag down my fun time.

Assertive, well-adjusted gamers of either stripe say "no thanks, but good luck" when a campaign isn't to their taste.  Passive but adjusted gamers have schedule conflicts or ghost until you get the hint.  People with misplaced priorities get upset frequently when their unspoken need isn't met, and yet keep coming back hoping it will be.  (We all have had a bad day or two that bled out into a social setting, but most for whom it is a rare exception will admit something from outside the game was the seed, and own their faux pas.)

Quote from: EOTB;1112122So if you as DM have group 2 people and you want to play games with those people instead of finding a different tribe - make fudge.  Don't try to run a fudge-free campaign and think it will go over.

Rather than secret Illusionism/Fudging to keep them happy, I prefer to introduce open mechanics like Fate Points that make PC death much less likely. The 5e Death Saves system works a bit like that - preserves the apparent possibility of PC death, no hiding fudging from the players, but in practice the GM can make PC death pretty unlikely in most circumstances.

Quote from: Trinculoisdead;1112001We had to end the game there. He threw a bit of a fit.

The problem here is the player, not the game. You could give him plot immunity, but then his character would miss a foe or fail to pick a lock or fail a persuasion check or something, and he'd throw a fit over that, instead.

In the past running an open game table, generally the reaction to character death from younger players is, "wow, you can actually die in this... cool!"

You just had a player who was a poor sport. If something like this happens again, dismiss the player from your game table, and play on with the rest of the people at the table. A soccer match doesn't end because one player deliberately draws a red card on himself, the team just plays on with 10 players instead of 11 - and chooses another 11th player for the next match.

The game must go on!

Quote from: bryce0lynch;1112032Celebrate.

I keep a Roles of the Dead

[ATTACH=CONFIG]3951[/ATTACH]

I haven't seen a Magnum 40 around here in a long time, I thought they stopped making them!

There's no real point in echoing what others have said regarding setting expectations. I will say there are plenty of lethal modern games out there that are very enjoyable as well. The OSR stuff is often much more random than the modern games, and that does change the dynamic quite a bit. In Call of Cthulhu or Delta Green, if someone has a gun on you, you're in big trouble and can die very easily. In an OSR game, if an Orc comes at your fighter, you are probably ok, but the Orc still has a slight possibility of killing you outright. Its a lot more random, for better or for worse, at least at lower levels.

Quote from: S'mon;1112134Rather than secret Illusionism/Fudging to keep them happy, I prefer to introduce open mechanics like Fate Points that make PC death much less likely. The 5e Death Saves system works a bit like that - preserves the apparent possibility of PC death, no hiding fudging from the players, but in practice the GM can make PC death pretty unlikely in most circumstances.

Yeah there are good ways to adjust that lethal slider up or down. Boosting PC hitpoints, nerfing monster damage, Fate Points, wounds-instead-of-death at negative HP, extra saving throws like 5e D&D.

I'm going to play different games for a bit though. The player in question keeps claiming that its not the death of the character that upsets him but the feeling that what he chooses doesn't matter, because it all comes down to a random die roll in the end.  I told him that, ideally, the choices you make determine whether that die roll happens, and the likelihood of it coming down in your favour, but he disagrees. He was upset and said a bunch of dumb shit about how he might as well be reading a book and how the game is badly designed, etc. etc. So it's all kind of clouded and mucky now. I don't think patching these games will fully solve the issue. If there's the possibility of character death due to bad rolls, then the same scenario will play out again, and I'm not going to let that happen of course.

Fuck, I guess it's time for another one-on-one conversation about expectations. I have not been looking forward to this, but I guess that's my job. So much for a stress-free pastime.

The plan is to play Mouse Guard instead. At least in that game the only way to lose a character is by agreeing to it as a possible outcome from a Conflict. I think that knowledge, that his character is safe unless he's okay with risking their life, plus the game's meta-currency for affecting dice rolls, will work out. If not, I'll find a new player!

Quote from: S'mon;1112134Rather than secret Illusionism/Fudging to keep them happy, I prefer to introduce open mechanics like Fate Points that make PC death much less likely. The 5e Death Saves system works a bit like that - preserves the apparent possibility of PC death, no hiding fudging from the players, but in practice the GM can make PC death pretty unlikely in most circumstances.

That can work too, so long as the fate points don't run out.

My experience as a GM is there are definitely folks who don't like the lethal play (and other "old school" aspects like unbalanced PCs due to random chargen), even if they seem to initially buy into it.

As a player, while it can be a real bummer to lose a character, what keeps me going is vowing to do better next time.

But it's also key that smart play actually WILL make a difference. If the GM cuts off all the smart play attempts, players will realize they really can't win. And then the death toll loses appeal.

I prefer lethality in games. But I am fine adapting to the tastes of the group if more people want a less lethal approach. But I would say on the whole, this is something that makes OSR games more fun and interesting to me (at least the ones that embrace that aspect of the game)

Seems appropriate.

(https://goodman-games.com/store/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2019/05/GG_Labels_031519-01.jpg)
https://goodman-games.com/blog/2019/05/01/new-in-our-online-store-self-inking-rpg-stamps/

Quote from: Trinculoisdead;1112045Yeah 5e is nothing as deadly as these other games I've mentioned. No comparison.

I'm glad other groups can make something fun out of it, like having a list on the wall. My list would drape across the floor, but we've played a lot of DCC funnels.

I like these games a lot, but I hate having to kill off characters now. Makes me sick at heart just thinking about it. It's been so long since I had a player who got into the spirit of it, and for a long time now I just feel as though everyone thinks I'm just punishing them or enjoying their "failure". I hate it. I'm just trying to run the game fairly and follow the rules. And it's impossible for me to try to make it fun or memorable or interesting if I'm cringing on the inside whenever I roll a critical hit. I guess I can't play any of these any more.

Are you sure that isn't because you fear on some level the player reaction? That the players are the type to not take it well? What if you had a bunch of players just like you who really get into the dying?

Quote from: Ratman_tf;1112185Seems appropriate.

(https://goodman-games.com/store/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2019/05/GG_Labels_031519-01.jpg)
https://goodman-games.com/blog/2019/05/01/new-in-our-online-store-self-inking-rpg-stamps/

I got some of those for my convention games a few weeks ago. It was a fun touch.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;1112194Are you sure that isn't because you fear on some level the player reaction? That the players are the type to not take it well? What if you had a bunch of players just like you who really get into the dying?

It's definitely that. At the Con game everyone was much more chill about it and I was more relaxed because of that.

Quote from: Trinculoisdead;1112195It's definitely that. At the Con game everyone was much more chill about it and I was more relaxed because of that.

I can understand that. Some players just don't want the meat grinder. I came up with an in-character "respawn" mechanic for one lethal game with death at 0 hit points with some taint/madness attached as one way to work around the obstacle. Still dangerous, still death, but the character isn't lost forever. Even then the players fear dying, though I'm not sure if this cheapens it. It definitely changes the game though, where you still have your main PC who levels up over time, rather than a slew of sheets.

The other thing about the grinder aspect, is it goes way down after you get 3-4 levels.  Not that death loses its sting, but I suspect many who complain about a conveyor of character sheets aren't playing much past that point.  

If you have as many hit points as a heavy war horse it might sting your pride to run from a bad tactical situation blundered into, but you usually have enough buffer to keep your mistakes from becoming fatalities.  Magic turns into the primary "whoops your dead, Jim" threat; and that often comes from cannons made of glass.    

None of this will matter to people who want to navigate a story, and play RPGs similarly to the 80s arcade game "Dragon's Lair".  They're looking for the "but I made the correct choice necessary to exit that scene and progress" dynamic, where that's their primary obligation to the game.  They are not looking for a tactical skirmish war game wrapped up in S&S garb with a bit of roleplaying sprinkled in.

Quote from: EOTB;1112197None of this will matter to people who want to navigate a story, and play RPGs similarly to the 80s arcade game "Dragon's Lair".  They're looking for the "but I made the correct choice necessary to exit that scene and progress" dynamic, where that's their primary obligation to the game.  They are not looking for a tactical skirmish war game wrapped up in S&S garb with a bit of roleplaying sprinkled in.

  And IMO, the problem is that the latter is such a 80,000-lb. all-devouring wyrm in the hobby's mindspace that it channels a lot of the people who are actually interested in the former towards its gaping maw, leading to dissatisfaction, dissonance, and/or distortion of either the players' interests or the game's playstyle. But I speak as someone more inclined to the first; those who prefer the second are probably annoyed at all those people who don't want to play the game 'right' flooding into it and turning it into something it was never meant to be.

Quote from: Simlasa;1112059I want lethal dangers in a game because it often makes Players think twice before starting combats... gets them looking for other ways to solve problems, which is where the real fun is for me anyway.
I've played games that lacked any real danger and people fell into playing bullies... and idiots who never planned anything because they knew they could just rush in, guns blasting, and get away with it.
Plus, combats are boring if you KNOW you are likely to win regardless... just an exercise in dice rolling, dragging out the inevitable. Combat just isn't exciting unless there is some level of desperation/consequences to it... death/wounding being the most immediate.

Yup, threat of lasting consequences keeps people sharp. :) That is why I never use Zero Level NPCs. When you don't know who you are facing, you tend to mind your manners if you doubt you can take them. ;)

(currently enduring a blackout, so only brief check and responses here. California is having a vicious case of wind. :eek: )

Quote from: Opaopajr;1112206Yup, threat of lasting consequences keeps people sharp. :) That is why I never use Zero Level NPCs. When you don't know who you are facing, you tend to mind your manners if you doubt you can take them. ;)

(currently enduring a blackout, so only brief check and responses here. California is having a vicious case of wind. :eek: )

What does level 0 NPCs have to do with it?

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;1112208What does level 0 NPCs have to do with it?

Very simple, when there are no Zero Level NPCs there is far little PC bullying and unplanning PC idiots. If you have to guess whether you can take on the town guard (or other local authority) -- let alone anyone else -- you start to think and use caution if you want to survive. Belligerent lone wolves die for a very good reason. ;)

Suddenly my fictional world threatens, and thus means something beyond a palette swap amid a PC's exploding awesomeness. The world cane explode back and erase your PC. You mean less. Get along. Mind your manners. Explore. :cool:

Quote from: Opaopajr;1112209Very simple, when there are no Zero Level NPCs there is far little PC bullying and unplanning PC idiots. If you have to guess whether you can take on the town guard (or other local authority) -- let alone anyone else -- you start to think and use caution if you want to survive. Belligerent lone wolves die for a very good reason. ;)

Suddenly my fictional world threatens, and thus means something beyond a palette swap amid a PC's exploding awesomeness. The world cane explode back and erase your PC. You mean less. Get along. Mind your manners. Explore. :cool:

I like it in high fantasy settings, but doesn't that clash with low fantasy ones?

How would that clash in low fantasy settings? That just makes numbers and coordination more lethal. ;)

Well, if everyone is a poor peasant then who is going to be a high level enough character to challenge PCs. There probably won't be any other wizards for hundreds of miles.

I think for me the deadliness of OSR games is not fun and I have no interest in playing a character that I dont even bother to name for the first five levels.

If you dont get upset when you character dies then it just means you probably did not really buy into the character in the first place, like when my Thimble goes to Jail in Monopoly.

Quote from: Shasarak;1112222If you dont get upset when you character dies then it just means you probably did not really buy into the character in the first place, like when my Thimble goes to Jail in Monopoly.

He was framed!

One of the things I've permanently stolen from Jaws of the Six Serpents is the idea of "danger levels". For those who haven't seen this, they are:

• Drama - unlikely to suffer any lasting harm, and consequences are removed / cleared quickly.
• Risk - lasting harm is still unlikely, but consequences, called scars, are permanent and will trouble the character for the rest of their days.
• Doom - the character's story ends - whether by death or some other final and irrevocable fate.

In general bar fights are going to be Dramatic. Getting jumped by back-alley thugs is Risk and going up against major villains is Doom. Any time the danger level increases, it immediately factors into the risk analysis of the players. Everyone knows what's on the table, and if the players decide to proceed into a higher Danger Level encounter, they're doing so with everyone on the same page about the potential outcomes.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;1112214Well, if everyone is a poor peasant then who is going to be a high level enough character to challenge PCs. There probably won't be any other wizards for hundreds of miles.

AD&D Conan. No non-NPC spellcasters. No non-human PCs and effectively none as NPCs. Low magic and no clerics. D&D pared down to the bones nearly. And works really well.
Whereas in TSR Conan PCs can eventually pick up magic. But magic near invariably has a price. Usually a loss of sanity, sometimes a permanent loss of health just to cast some spells.

Or in Dragon Storm which I designed a few cards for. The PCs start out usually as farmers and peasants totally unaware and unprepared for what is about to happen to them. You might luck out and get  an ex necro apprentice or hidden shaman. But even they are in the same boat. Just possibly actually aware of the true nature of the situation.

I think most normal players are ok with losing a character. But are NOT ok with arbitrary deaths of characters. This was something that BX stressed. There should allways be a way out, slim as that may be. Unless it is obviously impossible or certain death. And there should be alternatives, slim as those may be too.

Can the PC run across the rocks floating in the molten lava and make it to the other side? Yes. But they will take alot of damage and may have to make some DEX or % checks to not misstep and die instantly. Can they jump in the lava and swim across? no. Is there a ledge or some other way to bypass the lava lake? Look around and see what you discover. And so on.

Quote from: Ratman_tf;1112226He was framed!

Didnt even get a Save.  What a Gyp!

Quote from: Crusader X;1112019OSRs are lethal, but not every OSR game is equally lethal.  I like how The Black Hack 2e handles things - when a PC drops to 0 hit points, a d6 is rolled, but there is only a 1 in 6 chance of actual death.  But the other options include things such as being maimed, disfigured, etc.  So its not as lethal as, say, D&D B/X, but players still need to be very cautious as there are definitely consequences to dropping to 0 HP.  I think this range of consequences is more fun than just constant death.

I agree with this. I actually dont like for example BX deadliness of auto dead at zero hp. I find that TOO deadly. I like to see a save or something else at zero hp to see if you're dead. And if not dead, I like an injury table of some kind. Without this kind of genuine danger in the game, I find it too boring (looking at you, 5e).

Quote from: Graytung;1112108Coming from someone who ran a sandbox west-marches campaign that saw the death of over 60 player characters, including 3 TPKs, I can agree that buy in is important, but more important is how the campaign is set up in the first place.

...

You can set expectations all you want, and follow through with those expectations by having characters die. I even told new players that they should not write character backgrounds, because everyone was an adventurer and their goal was finding treasure and discovering the world... Players should be dealing with the problems as they come upon them, not turning up to a campaign with a laundry list already. Regardless, some players are just going to take death badly, in fact most players do. You can try and coach players into seeing the game past a character's death, but ultimately it's up to them how they decide they want to play... I can only recommend that when the dm\referee sets up an OSR style game and they want it to be deadly (and i believe it should), they need to find a way to disassociate the story from the players in a way that the players can still alter and interact with the story, but they do not become the story. I'd recommend a more episodic approach to adventure design, or a vast mega-dungeon environment. The goal isn't clear to begin with, and may just be to get rich. Later, the players can create their own goals based on what they discover, but even then, these personal goals should not be the primary focus, rather the world that exists around the players should be, and the player's goals stem from the world. With this approach, it's much easier to slot in different characters week to week.

If you set up a campaign where players have to write a long backstory, and goals from the start, then you're setting them up for disappointment and later when you need to insert a new player character into such a group, it is harder to do so. Players are limited to the types of characters they can bring to the already existing story.

100% this. Players coming to the table with long histories and pre-made enemies and all that jazz arent expecting a dangerous game. They're expecting 5e. If you want a dangerous campaign - where gameplay actually matters as opposed to playing out a story by the numbers - you need to set that tone from character creation, and use the right system for the job.

Quote from: ffilz;1112176But it's also key that smart play actually WILL make a difference. If the GM cuts off all the smart play attempts, players will realize they really can't win. And then the death toll loses appeal.

This is crucial, the DM should not be sabotaging the game.

It is a must that your players have a good grasp on the difference between fantasy and reality, those who don't should not play rpgs. Now while I can understand someone being bummed if their 8th level character gets killed through no fault of their own, anyone who throws a fit over the death of a low level character in an rpg, should not be playing an rpg. Lethality is a feature of rpgs, not a bug. If characters die in your game as a result of bad player decisions, then you are doing it right. When you look at new players, if they are good their character death rate goes down quickly as they learn how to play. If their death rate does not go down, then they are not learning from experience.  I post the definition of insanity on the wall in large print. I also have another sign posted right beside it that says, "Stop the insanity!!!!!! Stop dying!!!!"  Sometimes when a player's characters are dying for the same reason repeatedly and the player is complaining I just point to the wall.

Quote from: Omega;1112232AD&D Conan. No non-NPC spellcasters. No non-human PCs and effectively none as NPCs. Low magic and no clerics. D&D pared down to the bones nearly. And works really well.
Whereas in TSR Conan PCs can eventually pick up magic. But magic near invariably has a price. Usually a loss of sanity, sometimes a permanent loss of health just to cast some spells.

Or in Dragon Storm which I designed a few cards for. The PCs start out usually as farmers and peasants totally unaware and unprepared for what is about to happen to them. You might luck out and get  an ex necro apprentice or hidden shaman. But even they are in the same boat. Just possibly actually aware of the true nature of the situation.

Pelias the Socerer was one of the pregenerated player characters in the "Conan Against Darkness!" AD&D adventure module. TSR statted him up as a multiclassed 10th-level Magic-User/6th-level Illusionist. :)

Quote from: ElBorak;1112269It is a must that your players have a good grasp on the difference between fantasy and reality, those who don't should not play rpgs.

All rpgs? Characters can't die in Toon.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;1112214Well, if everyone is a poor peasant then who is going to be a high level enough character to challenge PCs. There probably won't be any other wizards for hundreds of miles.

That still does not have a contradiction for me. Sounds like you are conflating NPC Level with High/Low Fantasy spectrum. You can still have high levels in Low Fantasy settings. :) Your PC will just never know if that lowly NPC farmer is "Farmer, lvl 9: Bucket of Meat Points, ProWrestler Champion against Bully PCs, Deliverer of the People's Elbow."

Quote from: Sacrificial Lamb;1112276Pelias the Socerer was one of the pregenerated player characters in the "Conan Against Darkness!" AD&D adventure module. TSR statted him up as a multiclassed 10th-level Magic-User/6th-level Illusionist. :)

Nice try but you fail trolling as usual.
Apparently several noticed that and jabbed TSR for such a supposed flub. But was pointed out. Pelias is the exception. And is from one of the Conan books where he is a rarity there too. Scarlet Citadel I believe. The only other I can think of is Zelata. Though have not read the story she appears in. Just noted she got her own figure in the Conan Board game. Normal PCs can not be magic users normally in AD&D Conan.

Quote from: Ratman_tf;1112287All rpgs? Characters can't die in Toon.

Toon and a couple of others like Crushed for d20 and some other RPGs.

Quote from: Opaopajr;1112206(currently enduring a blackout, so only brief check and responses here. California is having a vicious case of wind. :eek: )

Hush you! We can't become a progressive utopia with the lights on.

And while we know exactly how the climate will be in 100 years, there was absolutely no way we could have predicted another annual fire season!!

Quote from: Shasarak;1112222If you dont get upset when you character dies then it just means you probably did not really buy into the character in the first place, like when my Thimble goes to Jail in Monopoly.

I buy into all my characters, but I don't get upset when they die because it's a damn game!

It's "Oh crap, Dwaleern One-Tooth is dead! Damn, I liked him. Oh well, time to roll up a new dude", but NOT "Fuck the GM, fuck you to hell! I'm not playing this game anymore unless you change it to my needs!"

It's doubly dumb to get upset about PC death in D&D because access to Raise Dead is pretty basic to most settings. While you might not raise a 1st level PC, it's common to raise a 3rd level one.

Quote from: Omega;1112304Nice try but you fail trolling as usual.
Apparently several noticed that and jabbed TSR for such a supposed flub. But was pointed out. Pelias is the exception. And is from one of the Conan books where he is a rarity there too. Scarlet Citadel I believe. The only other I can think of is Zelata. Though have not read the story she appears in. Just noted she got her own figure in the Conan Board game. Normal PCs can not be magic users normally in AD&D Conan.

It wasn't really a "flub". Spellcasters do exist in Conan's world, even if they aren't particularly common (or moral). You said "no non-NPC spellcasters", but there was an actual pregenerated player character spellcaster in that Conan adventure module.......and the spellcaster in question was even reasonably high-level. I know this, because I have that adventure module.

I can say that, because it's true.......and trolling isn't even necessary. :)

All I know is that I survived having 1 hit point at first level by not being idiot about what I was doing. The key to my survival was the two crossbowmen I hired.

I don't think it is that complicated but I think it could explained better.

[ATTACH=CONFIG]3953[/ATTACH]

[ATTACH=CONFIG]3954[/ATTACH]

Quote from: Spinachcat;1112307It's doubly dumb to get upset about PC death in D&D because access to Raise Dead is pretty basic to most settings. While you might not raise a 1st level PC, it's common to raise a 3rd level one.

And/or make an adventure out of it. DCC did it with the module Blades Against Death. I wouldn't want to see death become a revolving door, but the occasional rescue from death for a favorite character can be pretty cool.

I've been running Dungeon Crawl Classics for a solid two years now and aside from Level 0s and Level 1s, the players have managed to bounce back from hitting zero hit points a whole lot... Without a Cleric in the party, I could see how the game rules prove to be more lethal for PCs, but overall, it's not been an issue at all. Players understand that death of the character is a risk when they enter combat. I keep bumping up monster stats to see how far they can get without dying and they always surprise the hell out of me with their tenacious survival abilities.
Now most of the PCs in my group are levels 5 & 6 and they're a whole lot tougher. We haven't seen a PC death in a good long while.

Is the high lethality of DCC fun? Yes, it is. I think it could be unfun if the players are too attached to their characters. It happens.
The possibility of PC death makes the game really satisfying when the PCs survive a tough encounter, and makes everything that much more meaningful, in my opinion. And rolling over the body rule in DCC is fantastic. Nobody at the table knows whether the PC is alive or dead until they roll. That kind of tension is fun. I'm also a fan of the fact there is no resurrection spell in DCC. Death is permanent.

Quote from: Nihilistic Mind;1112336I'm also a fan of the fact there is no resurrection spell in DCC. Death is permanent.

Well, with the caveat that one can always "Quest for it!™"

As in, for example, the DCC adventure The Hole in the Sky, which specifically has a reward at the end of the game that can bring back fallen characters.

Quote from: Nihilistic Mind;1112336I've been running Dungeon Crawl Classics for a solid two years now and aside from Level 0s and Level 1s, the players have managed to bounce back from hitting zero hit points a whole lot... Without a Cleric in the party, I could see how the game rules prove to be more lethal for PCs, but overall, it's not been an issue at all. Players understand that death of the character is a risk when they enter combat. I keep bumping up monster stats to see how far they can get without dying and they always surprise the hell out of me with their tenacious survival abilities.
Now most of the PCs in my group are levels 5 & 6 and they're a whole lot tougher. We haven't seen a PC death in a good long while.

In general, I usually underestimate player characters. I'm always tuning my adventures "harder" rather than "easier".

Quote from: Nihilistic Mind;1112336And rolling over the body rule in DCC is fantastic. Nobody at the table knows whether the PC is alive or dead until they roll.

I'm not familiar with Dungeon Crawl Classic. Would you explain this in a more detail please?

Quote from: Trinculoisdead;1112337Well, with the caveat that one can always "Quest for it!"

As in, for example, the DCC adventure The Hole in the Sky, which specifically has a reward at the end of the game that can bring back fallen characters.

Right! An exception through questing is fine by me, but yeah I'm generally a fan that a dead PC means an extra hard quest to bring them back (if the party feels it's even worth it). That's a lot better than gathering enough gold to pay a church to resurrect them.

When I set up my Lamentations of the Flame Princess game I sent out an email to my players (https://talestoastound.wordpress.com/2016/01/20/death-is-on-the-table/) as an introduction to the kind of game we would be playing:

Lamentations of the Flame Princess is part of the Old School Renaissance of RPGs. A clean and sleek version of the early Dungeons & Dragons Basic Set, the game focuses on exploration, danger, and weird fantasy. The setting will not be Tolkien-esque, but a warped 17th century Europe where the strange and magical is rare, inexplicable, and invasive.

OSR games in general, and Lamentations of the Flame Princess specifically, work from principles that are different than a lot of game in recent decades. In general…

• The Referee has environments and situations, not a pre-planned "story" of any kind
• Players drive things forward with their choices
• The game is dangerous. The Referee is not there to kill your characters, but neither is he there to protect them. Dice are rolled out in the open. Death is part of the game. (Luckily, new characters are easy to roll up!)
• The situations you encounter are not "balanced." You might want to avoid encounters, you might want to flee encounters, and if you choose to engage them you'll want to have the PCs manipulate the fiction toward your advantage (Short hand: Think of conflicts as asymmetrical warfare, not as engaging in a sport.)
• In this kind of play the Referee presents the players with an environment that is as solid as possible, that would continue existing if you weren't there[/I].
  

Everyone understood what they were getting into. Everyone had a great time.

Importantly there haven't been that many deaths. The players dug into the kind of game were were playing and were careful, planned, assumed it was on them to tilt the odds in their favor.

In other words, simply because the game allows death and as a real threat doesn't mean everyone dies. It means it is the responsibility of the players to come up with clever plans to keep their characters safe. For the most part that is what my players have done.

By the same token, as the Referee I don't expect the players to be locked into using "the rules" in all situations to solve problems. The moment the PCs engage with the combat rules there is a chance they can die. That's the way they work.

So any ideas or schemes the players can come up with to succeed at what they want without engaging the combat rules I roll with. (Setting up ambushes; working toward engagement with a free round of combat; finding the best weapon for the particular threat; and so on.)

Most of our game is stuff that happens outside of the rules or rolling dice. The same is true of the Classic Traveller game I'm running right now.)

This is REALLY IMPORTANT for the Referee to keep in mind when running the game. The mechanics are light in OSR games... and they are light for a reason. These games are, as Marc Miller wrote in the Traveller rules 40 years ago, "conversation games." It is the act of talking, generating ideas and actions for the PCs, the Referee making rulings on the actions without always having a mechanic at hand to help him, that makes the games work.

Yes. It is frustrating when a PC dies. But there is a great deal of pleasure from the players when they come up with ideas and schemes to circumvent threats or shift the odds in their favor and thread a needle to victory. And that sense of pleasure works in part because the fact is the PCs could die and yet they did not!

Quote from: Bren;1112344I'm not familiar with Dungeon Crawl Classic. Would you explain this in a more detail please?

When your PC hits zero hit points, your character fall unconscious. You can be healed from this state within 1+level rounds, if you're not healed within this time frame there's a chance that the character is still alive which is called "rolling the body". The other characters roll your body over to see if you're really dead. You roll a d20 and if you roll under your current luck score, your character is still alive but really banged up. You go to 1hp and lose a permanent point in strength, agility or stamina. You're also groggy and get a penalty to rolls for a certain amount of game time.

Quote from: Nihilistic Mind;1112348When your PC hits zero hit points, your character fall unconscious. You can be healed from this state within 1+level rounds, if you're not healed within this time frame there's a chance that the character is still alive which is called "rolling the body". The other characters roll your body over to see if you're really dead. You roll a d20 and if you roll under your current luck score, your character is still alive but really banged up. You go to 1hp and lose a permanent point in strength, agility or stamina. You're also groggy and get a penalty to rolls for a certain amount of game time.

Notably, even DCC, which advertises it's deadliness, has various buffers between the character and death.

Quote from: Ratman_tf;1112351Notably, even DCC, which advertises it's deadliness, has various buffers between the character and death.

Exactly, it's really deadly for level-zero characters (they don't benefit from this, if they hit zero hit points, they are simply dead), but beyond it's survivable. From reading about the game originally I really thought we would experience a PC death every couple sessions or so, but so far it's not even close. The players in my groups like to play smart though, so I think that helps mitigate the inherent lethality.

Quote from: Nihilistic Mind;1112353Exactly, it's really deadly for level-zero characters (they don't benefit from this, if they hit zero hit points, they are simply dead), but beyond it's survivable. From reading about the game originally I really thought we would experience a PC death every couple sessions or so, but so far it's not even close. The players in my groups like to play smart though, so I think that helps mitigate the inherent lethality.

What if enemies attack the body? Or do they just ignore it?

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;1112355What if enemies attack the body? Or do they just ignore it?

If enemies attack the body, I imagine the character dies. Not sure there are rules that are that specific, but that's how I would rule it.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;1112355What if enemies attack the body? Or do they just ignore it?

As a GM, most intelligent creatures do not attack incapacitated opponents. Undead are the most likely. A carnivore animal should actually try and run off with it's catch if it was hunting. An intelligent creature might attack incapacitated opponents out of spite or revenge. Attacking incapacitated opponents reflects a take no prisoners attitude, expect the allies of the downed foe to react accordingly.

As to the mechanics, many systems have coup de grace rules, or you can just make a ruling. Of course some creatures are not so easy to dispatch (regenerating trolls for example) and special measures may need to be taken.

Quote from: ffilz;1112363As a GM, most intelligent creatures do not attack incapacitated opponents. Undead are the most likely. A carnivore animal should actually try and run off with it's catch if it was hunting. An intelligent creature might attack incapacitated opponents out of spite or revenge. Attacking incapacitated opponents reflects a take no prisoners attitude, expect the allies of the downed foe to react accordingly.

As to the mechanics, many systems have coup de grace rules, or you can just make a ruling. Of course some creatures are not so easy to dispatch (regenerating trolls for example) and special measures may need to be taken.

See, I look at it the opposite way.

Animals are likely to go for the kill when they get an opening, or be in a battle frenzy and not even notice whether you're alive or dead until a few more whacks.

Intelligent enemies will realize you can get healed and take you out for good, just like players would. Granted, that would depend on the NPC's morality -- so dumb animals are actually more dangerous in that regard.

Well, I guess that's not opposite of you after all, but it's pretty common for PCs to go for the throat on downed enemies so I don't see it as something unusual in return.

Quote from: Trinculoisdead;1112001I've played a lot of Dungeon Crawl Classics, a little bit of Maze Rats, and ran my first session of the Whitehack tonight. In all of them, character death happens pretty often and unpredictably. In the game tonight one of my players got pretty upset after their 1st level warrior-type character was one-shot by the first monster they fought in the dungeon. He was down to 4 HP out of 6, and the monsters were rolling d6s. Of course I rolled a 6 on my first attack. One failed save later and whoop he was dead. We had to end the game there. He threw a bit of a fit. Clearly these games are not a good match for him, or I'm doing something completely wrong.

So yeah, in these high-lethality games, how do you as players or GMs deal with characters dying off so much? Does it disrupt the continuity of your game? Is it something that takes getting used to? Is there anything you can do as a GM to make it more fun or acceptable to the players? Or is total-buy-in the only way for these games to work? Is this even fun?

When I ran Original D&D, I guess that's OSR, 0 HP wasn't dead. You had a chance to survive (based on Con and Level) right down to a ridiculous number of HP below 0. To balance that, Raise Dead and such were flat never available. If your comrades survived and held the field, there was a good chance you were salvageable. Even if they didn't, we had a couple of occasions when a victorious enemy healed you up.

My players never complained about having to sit there while the scene played out but I have read that some object to that. Well, fights never lasted that long, even when I ran high-level OD&D, so they found out their fate fairly quickly.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;1112364See, I look at it the opposite way.

Animals are likely to go for the kill when they get an opening, or be in a battle frenzy and not even notice whether you're alive or dead until a few more whacks.

Intelligent enemies will realize you can get healed and take you out for good, just like players would. Granted, that would depend on the NPC's morality -- so dumb animals are actually more dangerous in that regard.

Well, I guess that's not opposite of you after all, but it's pretty common for PCs to go for the throat on downed enemies so I don't see it as something unusual in return.

A carnivore that has downed it's prey is going to try and drag it to a safe place to eat if it can do so. Of course carnivores that take down a larger target will expect the rest of the herd to flee. Really most RPG combats with animals are probably not very realistic...

Intelligent enemies won't waste time on a downed foe until they have won the battle, or see that they will lose the battle and decide to kill downed foes out of spite. The way they actually handle the situation will depend on if they perceive any value from taking prisoners. Killing a downed foe will mean the remaining opponents will fight to the death unless they are certain they can actually escape if they are losing. I think most intelligent creatures would give some consideration to what will happen if they start killing downed foes.

In my experience, PCs focus on the still dangerous foes (which generally means NOT the downed foes) unless they have no one else to attack or feel like they are losing.

Quote from: ffilz;1112370A carnivore that has downed it's prey is going to try and drag it to a safe place to eat if it can do so. Of course carnivores that take down a larger target will expect the rest of the herd to flee. Really most RPG combats with animals are probably not very realistic...

Intelligent enemies won't waste time on a downed foe until they have won the battle, or see that they will lose the battle and decide to kill downed foes out of spite. The way they actually handle the situation will depend on if they perceive any value from taking prisoners. Killing a downed foe will mean the remaining opponents will fight to the death unless they are certain they can actually escape if they are losing. I think most intelligent creatures would give some consideration to what will happen if they start killing downed foes.

In my experience, PCs focus on the still dangerous foes (which generally means NOT the downed foes) unless they have no one else to attack or feel like they are losing.

You're ignoring healing. If you take down an enemy that's key to the encounter, but they can be right back in it if they get healed -- and healing is pretty quick in games like 5e -- then the only way to make sure they stay down is to kill them. This is true on the PC and NPC side.

One rule of thumb: you as DM run combats against this group all the time, but most foes have never seen them before and (unless directed by someone with intel) fight with whatever common tactics they'd use against your average 0-level group of mercs or bandits, unless adventurers are common as dirt.  Run NPCs/monsters according to their own tendencies.

This is what makes recurring villains so much fun - they have experience with the PCs, which allows you to DM with the gloves off.

But most groups don't fight against people who can heal a lot, and their tactics won't reflect that until it starts happening.

Quote from: EOTB;1112376One rule of thumb: you as DM run combats against this group all the time, but most foes have never seen them before and (unless directed by someone with intel) fight with whatever common tactics they'd use against your average 0-level group of mercs or bandits, unless adventurers are common as dirt.  Run NPCs/monsters according to their own tendencies.

This is what makes recurring villains so much fun - they have experience with the PCs, which allows you to DM with the gloves off.

But most groups don't fight against people who can heal a lot, and their tactics won't reflect that until it starts happening.

I would say that depends on how much magic they're used to.

A bunch of peons in a backwater -- yes, they'd be caught off guard. The royal guard of the kingdom -- no, they'd be aware of such tactics.

Sure, OK.  If your PCs are taking on that type frequently they're either not very bright players or that sort of competition is being funneled to them.

Point being, a lot of DMs make average everyday foes perform at a high level against players because they're forgetting one aspect of roleplaying is playing the competition at their own level, instead of above what they would likely normally do.  This flows from the mistaken idea that a DMs job is to manufacture tension.

Quote from: EOTB;1112380Sure, OK.  If your PCs are taking on that type frequently they're either not very bright players or that sort of competition is being funneled to them.

Point being, a lot of DMs make average everyday foes perform at a high level against players because they're forgetting one aspect of roleplaying is playing the competition at their own level, instead of above what they would likely normally do.  This flows from the mistaken idea that a DMs job is to manufacture tension.

Well, that and the mistaken belief that playing the monsters that way is a good means towards their goal.  If you want to manufacture tension, you do it with uncertainty. Playing every group of monsters the same way is the opposite.  Moreover, if you simply play the foes according to their natures, the players will be able to handle a wider range of encounters (both in power level and scope of capabilities).  Whether one wants to emphasize a living world reacting in a consistent manner or emphasize drama or some combination of the two, the correct answer is still playing monsters according to their nature.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;1112373You're ignoring healing. If you take down an enemy that's key to the encounter, but they can be right back in it if they get healed -- and healing is pretty quick in games like 5e -- then the only way to make sure they stay down is to kill them. This is true on the PC and NPC side.

(trying to take into account the progression of the discussion)

Sure, if healing is part of the equation, and foes expect it (this all goes into what the world is actually like as has been pointed out, and may be adjusted as part of the "game"), then they will react accordingly. In that case, maybe it is worth a blow at a downed opponent to make them less likely to bounce back up. On the other hand, depending on the system, it may still be more worthwhile targeting the healer.

Ultimately I think it's hard to really know how the reality that an RPG rule set creates will affect creature reactions. We do know in the real world that many animals that don't have experience with humans don't react to the actual danger humans present them, while other animals learn about humans and react accordingly.

I think it's important to make the game fun while allowing prediction based on natural understanding. It may be worth highlighting that: "This world knows healing is easy, so intelligent opponents will consider that may allow incapacitated foes to re-enter the combat, in that case, intelligent creatures may decide to swing at incapacitated foes."

(I am going to have my power forcibly conserved for my benefit again. :) I almost had a whole 24 hours of bourgie decadence to wear down The People's Resolve.)

I really need to run my own DCC game. Got the book. Just need a module and some sporty victims. :cool:

If a PC is lying unconscious on the floor of a battlefield, they are in much danger. Missed arrows go somewhere. Area attacks might include them. Large dumb monsters stomping their way to their next opponent might not care what they step on. Some enemies are vindictive and cruel, seeking to use a decapitation to intimidate the PCs into fleeing.

AKA, unconscious allies don't enter a protected stasis. PCs should rescue their fallen quickly...and monsters can take advantage of that altruism as well. No good deed goes unpunished!

Quote from: Ratman_tf;1112331I wouldn't want to see death become a revolving door, but the occasional rescue from death for a favorite character can be pretty cool.

In my Mazes & Minotaurs game, PCs are always welcome to rescue their friends from the Underworld...

The one time they went for it, they didn't research or plan their escape, not understanding that it's really easy to ENTER the Greek Underworld and a nightmare to EXIT. They succeeded in bringing their old friend back to life, but at the cost of 4 of the 6 person party who died in Hades.

Perhaps the 1E rule on a PC being nearly worthless for several days after being healed up from negative HP is an in-game mercy, in that NPCs know that downed foes won't be springing up to fight again even if they are healed.  Enemies might welcome it, since all that is happening is one of their foes getting distracted and not fighting back directly, while stablilizing a companion who (from the enemies' perspective) is now possible to sell or ransom instead of simply strip and bury.

So playing btb 1E, there's no incentive to further savage a downed foe out of fear they'll spring up and fight again.

Correct. If your foe is downed, you don't stand around stabbing him some more, you move on to the next surviving foe. The umberhulk is not possessed by the spirit of the Punisher.

But the umberhulk doesn't daintily walk around the fallen to get to their next food, I mean foe.

If death is off the table, then most of the game's stakes and tensions are lost. OTOH, if there's a PC death every session, some of the roleplaying aspects are diminished and PC's start to feel disposable, also reducing stakes and tension. It's a balance and it's different for every group.

Yes but he also doesn't want to trip over the downed foes.

Sure, he's big and it shouldn't be much of an issue for him if he does step on someone. But then you get into relative sizes and strengths and start to wonder why a single blow from an 800lb umberhulk doesn't send a 150lb fighter flying, and reality gets too confusing. So it's easier to say that just as I wouldn't step on a rabbit I'd shot, an umberhulk wouldn't step on a downed human fighter. Maybe, like me with the rabbit, he doesn't want to ruin his dinner?

Who knows. "You're still alive, but... whooops! The umberhulk steps on you and you're squashed to death! So sad!" is getting into dickhead DM territory, and we try not to do that.

There's no need for DMs to go out of their way to kill PCs when players are so keen to do it for them.

Quote from: Spinachcat;1112091Post the link! That's a great story!

Ask and you shall receive.  First some music to set the tone for this tell of woe.

[video=youtube;t0CR1IJKMPo]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t0CR1IJKMPo&list=FL7-IcXEWoFVCBWfjzGEqdsQ&index=9&t=0s[/youtube]

Now for the tell to begin.  Sit around everyone because you will see a actual role playing game. (https://www.minds.com/Snowman0147/blog/gravity-the-ultimate-party-killer-1007534474242760704)

Hell yeah its fun.

For OSR games deadliness is a strong feature.

Especially when deadliness is applied to non hit point situations. When you have avenues to death that bypass and ignore hit points, you promote more varied style play. If you are facing save or die poisons or save or level drain undead, you have to approach these creatures differently than you would against an ablative hit point threat.

When everything has to go through hit points, you run into the weird issues where Constitution defends against incorporeal touch or spells and abilities that pump hp or grant temp hp have universal benefit.

If I got save or died or save or level drained, I'd learn from it. Darn it, I died, I'll try to do better next time.

I once ran an AD&D game where the halfling thief died because he got a little too enamored with the ring of invisibility that he'd recently acquired.  To make it short:  Decided that he was 6' tall and arrow proof with the ring.  Scouted everything.  Worked very well to keep the party from getting surprised.  Decided to disable a trap without reporting back to the party first.  Was incapacitated.  Happened to be in a room that saw a lot of enemy traffic.  Meanwhile, party decides something has gone wrong (players didn't know what had happened) and start looking for him.  They find the room the same time a wandering group of monsters show up.  The fight attracts more, including some big ones.  In the back and forth fight, with each side gaining the upper hand and losing it, morale breaking, rallies, and several charges, the poor halfling is tramped to death 1d3 hit points at a time.  

He was 7th level and uninjured before the trap.  They never did find his body or the ring.

Quote from: ffilz;1112370A carnivore that has downed it's prey is going to try and drag it to a safe place to eat if it can do so. Of course carnivores that take down a larger target will expect the rest of the herd to flee. Really most RPG combats with animals are probably not very realistic...

You havent been around many animals then.

Animals can be as unpredictable as people. Sometimes moreso as they can and will act in ways that are not the norm. Or at least not the expected norm.

Not all of the heroes or villains will die in a given fight...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eV8YXCGFh8I (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eV8YXCGFh8I)

Just the 0-level men-at-arms perished there. :) Of course, then the DM was an arsehole and sent a poisoned snake in a bow after one of the players. "Forty hit points, you say? I'll show you what your forty hit points are good for! Save vs Poison!"

The scenes in these movies have inspired many in my games over the years. After all, who doesn't want to fight the villain while he's in the middle of a cannibalistic orgy?

At the end of the day though the answer to the question is, as allways...

Varies from table to table, group to group, campaign to campaign, player to player.

And one players deadly might be another players exciting and another players really boring. Same really with campaigns where death, or its equivalent, is rare. For some thats fine, for others its deadly boring. Everyone has their threshold as with all else in gaming.

Wow! I got quoted by a spambot! :D

BTW my 12 year old son was complaining today that 5e D&D is too easy, and he prefers Classic D&D or S&W. He's pretty Old School.

Quote from: S'mon;1112728Wow! I got quoted by a spambot! :D

BTW my 12 year old son was complaining today that 5e D&D is too easy, and he prefers Classic D&D or S&W. He's pretty Old School.

New kid, old school. There goes the nostalgia canard people like to trot out when they talk about why OSR games are so popular.

Spotted on the K&KA:

Quote from: FlambeauxHosting another game session for my kids and their friends. Currently 15 players are confirmed. After sending their exploration of the Withered Crag, without having discovered most of its secrets, they're answering the call of the Keep on the Borderlands. The last party these players had were all eaten by owlbears during a previous misadventure in the vicinity.

If that doesn't make you go "Hell yes! I want this game!", I am sad to say you may be better off doing origami. :cool:

I think that lethality isn't the problem, I think that the way it is expressed and the GM's interaction with lethality is the problem.

I had a GM for awhile who had a bunch of skull-and-bones stickers, and everytime a PC died, he would write the name and date on one, and stick it on the whiteboard. I'm sure some of you think that's a good idea, or at least funny, but honestly the message it sends to me is "I enjoy killing characters and find it amusing, regardless of how you feel about it."

Now obviously the GM is running team monster, which means he necessarily has the goal of killing PCs, when in that mode. But there is a world of difference between RPing team monster, and generally just being an assclown about PC deaths.

If the game is just some throwaway dungeon crawl fare, then sure, I can just "make a dude" and roll with it if he dies. But in that context, don't expect me to come up with a backstory or personality - shit, you're probably lucky if said character has anything past a first name. But in my mind, that's not a character, it's a pawn. That kind of game isn't really my speed.

But if you want me to get invested in the game, actually give a damn about the setting, and think about the consequences of actions? You need to tone down the "viking hat" bullshit and actually communicate with players. If I'm going to invest time and effort into putting together a reasonable character concept, I'd expect that you respect that enough to not pull crap like "you die, no save."

Yeah, it's great to see Flambeaux running for all those kids.  He's an avid homeschooler who has a podcast about using gaming in homeschooling.  

http://played.podbean.com/

Kids simply don't care about all the RPG conventional wisdom dedicated hobbyists are convinced is important.  They just want to have fun.

Yeah, I don't get that sort of pleasure, even if it is done in the spirit of competitive fun or even comedy. :(

I see myself as a fan of the players' PCs, hence they get my spotlight attention. :) Which reminds me, whatever cool stuff I may be doing in my world, my players' PCs take priority -- a way to keep me on task instead of "showing fresh-eyes/victims my lovely stories."

However I am also a neutral arbiter of an ideally self-coherent fictional world. ;) I won't play favorites, and actions do have consequences -- as does luck! So I do find myself sad as PCs, to whom we at the table have become attached, die. :)

That's part of the fun and challenge for me. Characters who deliberately court danger and eventually get their ticket punched have a full living cycle. They end up 'breathing' by 'living on the edge' with what time they have. It's not the death or killing, it's the cheering on as players rev the PCs into life's curves. :cool:

Lethality is fun in OSR games because it means there's more skin in the game. When you have a character that makes a really good run it actually means something.

As a player I prefer it because it helps me become more invested in the character when I'm nervous that he might actually die. As a GM I think high lethality helps keep players grounded, it's been my experience that players in these sorts of games treat the game world more seriously.

Quote from: Arkansan;1113520As a GM I think high lethality helps keep players grounded, it's been my experience that players in these sorts of games treat the game world more seriously.

True for some players, increasing lethality will make them pay more attention to the setting.

Other players treat the game world seriously regardless of lethality. Usually because they are interested in the particular setting or because they like exploring settings or interacting with NPCs in general. For them, increasing lethality doesn't give you any bang for the buck. And for some subset of those already engaged players the severing of connections when their character dies or the fear of that loss will make them pay somewhat less attention to the setting since it seems impermanent.


And for still other players, lethality has no effect on their attention to the setting. Because they never pay attention. Of course many of those players are twits.

Quote from: GnomeWorks;1112962I'm sure some of you think that's a good idea, or at least funny, but honestly the message it sends to me is "I enjoy killing characters and find it amusing, regardless of how you feel about it."

I need that T-shirt!

Quote from: GnomeWorks;1112962Now obviously the GM is running team monster, which means he necessarily has the goal of killing PCs, when in that mode. But there is a world of difference between RPing team monster, and generally just being an assclown about PC deaths.

Exactly. I fully agree.

I don't make things more lethal for the PCs. I just make a lethal world and run it accordingly. Considering the PCs are not mook commoners, but badasses in their own right, it's an equal fight. But equal fights mean sometimes the PCs lose.

Quote from: GnomeWorks;1112962If I'm going to invest time and effort into putting together a reasonable character concept, I'd expect that you respect that enough to not pull crap like "you die, no save."

A reasonable character concept takes 5 minutes. Maybe 15 if you're daydreaming or really trying to think out of the box. Unfortunately for many games, it takes far longer to make the character mechanically than their concept.  

I consider lengthy backstories to be fan-fic wankery, so that gets no respect from me. A player wants be a novelist? Great, they can write their novel and maybe I'll read it when its published. But until then, I just want a handful of bullet points about how their PC fits into my setting so we can get cracking with the actual play.

Quote from: EOTB;1112964Kids simply don't care about all the RPG conventional wisdom dedicated hobbyists are convinced is important.  They just want to have fun.

We know girls just wanna have fun, but what about the boys?

Quote from: Spinachcat;1113609We know girls just wanna have fun, but what about the boys?

Boys want "to crush [their] enemies -- See them driven before [themselves], and to hear the lamentation of their women!" :mad: ... until they get regularly laid enough that this urge subsides to manageable levels. :D

:D

Most boys just want to kill things and take its stuff.

Boys want to kill it and then take its stuff.  Girls want to take its stuff and then kill it.

I admit that functionally there is often little difference in these approaches. ;)

In my experience, there's very little difference between how boys and girls roleplay. MAYBE, the most you can say, is that boys are a little more interested in their character being "powerful", while girls are bit more interested in their character being "interesting". But even that is a gross generalization.