Increasing Lethality

[pwykersotz]

I think this question will be a little unpopular on this particular forum, but I'll try anyway.

How do I make my games more lethal in an interesting and entertaining way?

See, my players accuse me of being a bit of a Care Bear because I haven't killed any PC's in a very long time. Most campaigns don't see a permanent death. However, I have set the party against incredible odds. Deadly foes, cunning traps, and all manner of horrors that were well beyond them. It turns out my players are exceptionally good problem solvers though. They've managed to deal with the situations I throw their way. But they feel like without the occasional character kill, it's just easy mode.

Maybe it's a mindset on my part. I seldom envision scenarios where I'm trying to actively destroy the party. I like challenges and narrative most, and I love seeing how my players try to problem solve.

Here's the exact problems I'm trying to solve, though I'm sure I haven't figured out the whole scope yet:

What sorts of challenges are actually lethal to mid or high level D&D characters that aren't just a ramp up of CR, GM-screws, or plot enforced death? In short, how do YOU provide legit and hefty opportunity for death for your players?

What are some good ways while maintaining a strong narrative to roll in new characters after a death? Obviously once it's decided that a character is dead, minimizing the players downtime is important.

What do you think of Resurrection spells in this context? I dislike them personally, but I'm open to ideas.

Oh, and before you recommend it, I've read AngryDM's article on the subject and perused multiple OSR forums. I just haven't found any answers that I'd be able to emulate satisfactorily yet. I'd appreciate any thoughts!

[JellyPooga]

An Execution might be up your alley.

Have one of the PC's arrested for something that carries the death sentence that he's actually guilty of. If the nation that's holding the accused is powerful enough, the players will have a hard time releasing him and if they're dumb, could end in a TPK. The best they can really hope for without upsetting the balance of power by weakening a powerful state or getting themselves killed, is to lose the accused. If that state is at war or is an ally of the PC's, the players might not be able to afford a confrontation. How "Good" are the party? How far are they willing to go for a fellow party member? Moral dilemmas are much harder to solve through mere cunning and good preparation.

[Drackolus]

It's important to not force deaths. Now, if you wanna do something cool, try to create scenarios that allow the players to choose to do something almost suicidal but decidedly heroic - give them a noble sacrifice that they still have a slim chance of surviving, but make it clear that they don't have to. If they want to see a death, make them feel good about it. Unless it's Strahd. Then butcher them. Mercilessly.

[toapat]

the most effective way to increase lethality without throwing something from outside the assumptions of the rules at the players is to simply throw better and better spellcasters at the players. Take advantage of monsters with Legendary and Lair Actions. Do they need to kill the red dragon? Good news, its not leaving its lair and its Volcano Season. If that ABSOLUTELY doesnt work, then you need to bust out hostile PCs, because remember, Monsters are tanky. Players are squishy.

Resurrection already has a very high cost that shouldnt be offset in a single encounter economically

[Laurefindel]

Maybe it's a mindset on my part. I seldom envision scenarios where I'm trying to actively destroy the party. I like challenges and narrative most, and I love seeing how my players try to problem solve.

There's nothing wrong about not killing characters, provided that you sufficiently challenge the players for them to have fun. Are they asking you a higher mortality rate?

For one thing, you could simply do without resurrection-like spells; bringing back the dead is a one-shot divine intervention miracle.

You can also use the variant healing rule whereas PC don't regain full hp on a long rest (making them more dependent on their hit dice).

You could have critical hits, saves failed by rolling a "1" and going down to 0 hp cause a debilitating effect of some sort, like a reduction on max hp or an exhaustion level. In that line of thought, there's the lasting injuries variant rule in the DMG. This won't increase death per se, but going down to 0 hp becomes more than a speed bump.

[pwykersotz]

There's nothing wrong about not killing characters, provided that you sufficiently challenge the players for them to have fun. Are they asking you a higher mortality rate?

Yes. They are asking me directly for a higher mortality rate. And I should add that while the rest of your ideas are great for making the players more squishy, I'd rather alter my style than their mechanics if possible.

[Addaran]

Like toapat said, casters definitively help making the game harder. Especially if there's big dangerous enemies with the caster, so they can't ignore any of them.

So far though, with a good team, it's pretty hard to kill the players. Only times it happened was because they are only 3 players, and aggroed multiple encounters in one go. They are so strong and strategic, they could murder like 10 encounters in a row, it's just when they do fight 3-4 in one shot, with reinforcement that it gets dangerous.


Another trick, if you are as good as your players (strategy and problem solving) is to use intelligent enemies. That way you can really play them optimally, without it being cheap meta-gaming. Kinda tucker's kobold, but with actually dangerous enemies CR-wise.

[toapat]

i think another question is how many players is this that are asking for a death between them?

the idea of suicide tasks is possible but that relies on DM fiat and watching Critical Role's "A Name is Earned" feels off compared to the usual encounters because trying to name the sphinx was kinda arbitrary and WAY outclassing even their 7 character party because Pike is very reactive for a healer cleric, Keyleith is an airhead druid, and Scanlan is more comedy relief then proper godly College of Lore bard

[Hrugner]

Fewer rests and more proactive enemies. Have enemies track them and spy on them to make resting less safe and occasionally broken up as well as to attempt ambushes in environments that play to their weaknesses. Have enemies attack shops and other places of assistance to reduce access to consumables and forcing them to defend very weak allies.

But of course, give the players a chance to see these things coming so they can counter them somewhat.

[Fuzzy Logic]

Can I ask what your monsters are doing when they down a player? I've had a few monsters hit a downed pc then use those 2 autofailed death saves to hold the party hostage. You could simply hit them twice and then they're dead. Makes sense from a non meta perspective for assasins, or intelligent enemies who have seen a healer in action in the party.

[GoodbyeSoberDay]

Why not up the CR? If they're smart and careful - and they seem to be, from your description - they'll just have to get more creative in how to solve the encounter. They may even run away sometimes, which is a great way to show that you're not messing around without anyone actually having to roll up a new character. Some of my favorite fights as a player were when the party got whooped, regrouped, and then went back with Plan B to kick the other guys' asses.

At the same time, upping the CR will cause fights to be more swingy due to higher damage potential, which leads to the mortality rate they desire.

[toapat]

Why not up the CR?

Upping CR isnt necessarily a solution Bigger numbers dont necessarily mean less effective party. Also you can vastly increase lvl Challenge without leaving the CR before lvl 20.

what we need atm is to understand how large and what composition of a party Pwykersotz DMs for. CR will shut down mundane parties, but a heavy caster party will break things at CR without good Lair actions or heavy opposed caster forces

[Sigreid]

So here's what I think you should do. Take an enemy of theirs that knows them, and using what he knows of them put yourself in his place actively trying to kill them with as much cunning and resource as he can muster. Use only the knowledge he would have of them, but play offense, not defense. You aught to be able to tally up at least one.

[Twelvetrees]

What sorts of challenges are actually lethal to mid or high level D&D characters that aren't just a ramp up of CR, GM-screws, or plot enforced death? In short, how do YOU provide legit and hefty opportunity for death for your players?

What are some good ways while maintaining a strong narrative to roll in new characters after a death? Obviously once it's decided that a character is dead, minimizing the players downtime is important.

What do you think of Resurrection spells in this context? I dislike them personally, but I'm open to ideas.


To try to answer the first question, my suggestion is to make the players take risks. If you haven't done so already, introduce other goals besides survival and killing their foes. Or complicate what they usually have to do.

Have the players try to beat their enemies to a McGuffin--and have their foes closer to reaching it. If they must race to an Amulet in a heavily trapped hall, their enemies have already gotten past a Wall of Force and are just about to enter a maze. A few of the players might be able to teleport past the Wall, but they could also bypass the wall by side tunnels with the rest of their party (a longer route that would allow their foes to get closer to their goal). When they catch up, how do they deal with a rear guard? Do they try to run by them and get to the few enemies who have gone to get the Amulet? Do they split up?

Make them reluctant to attack head on. If the damage of every attack they make on a foe is transferred to innocent NPCs, they will likely want to prevent that effect before they continue to attack.

Force choices with the environment. What happens if your players face foes in a canyon and a torrential downpour begins? Do they get to higher ground, aware of the rising water? Or do they stay where they are and hope they don't get washed downstream when a rush of floodwaters comes barreling through?



To address the second question, the only advice I can give is to tie their goals in with the rest of the party. Are they trying to bring down a necromancer? One of the new character's relatives was raised as a wight. Align their goals, have them know the same NPCs.



As for Resurrection, I don't have a clue. It minimizes downtime, but can lead to a revolving door of death effect. Emphasize the ceremony, make the players realize that coming back from death is extraordinary, perhaps. If that does nothing, put them in debt to whatever deity of Death you have in your setting. Make them aware that living is contingent on fulfilling a quest from this deity.

[pwykersotz]

what we need atm is to understand how large and what composition of a party Pwykersotz DMs for. CR will shut down mundane parties, but a heavy caster party will break things at CR without good Lair actions or heavy opposed caster forces

As campaigns shift, I have all sorts. I have a table of anywhere from 3-5, and last campaign was all casters. This campaign is a Ranger(Hunter), Figher(Scout), and Rogue(Arcane Trickster). They have the magic initiate feat and a smattering of magic items.

Now, to reiterate, I don't currently have the understanding to be a more lethal DM so my focus might be misplaced, but I'm more interested in DM style than specifics. I can place magical traps, I can increase CR, I can ramp up difficulty all over the place. But I think those are more...I don't know...unrefined ways to do it?

I like the advice about working more on active enemies who seek the party's destruction. I have plenty of those. But here's how I process that and part of where I think my problem is:

"Okay, I've made a trap. The party will find a strange house in the woods. I'm certain they'll investigate because that's what they do. Their enemy the witch has put it there to lure them in, and intends to set upon them with curses and summons in an attempt to do them in. Now I've just got to balance the encounter."

That last part is, I think, the source of trouble. I don't stop the party from investigating or from using their own spells or powers to navigate the situation at their discretion, but I'm a little gunshy about zap traps and no-win situations. If I load that place up with so many dangers that the first party member to step in finds themselves spattered across the floor, it feels heavy-handed. Even if it was telegraphed, even if they could have investigated and didn't. Now I'm more okay if there is a creature in there that can't or won't quite one-shot them but can seriously make them hurt and make them run. But this is that precipice I'm currently balancing on. If they get hurt and run, no-one dies and it's still not really potentially lethal unless they stand and fight an obvious roflstomp. If I kill them in one blow despite the warnings, it feels like I'm making rocks fall. Because when I overbalance an encounter to include a one-shot, that's what it is, I'm saying rocks fall and they die if they didn't think to investigate first.

I didn't realize all this when I made the thread, but thinking about that has clarified that a bit for me. Am I just holding back too much here? Should I bring the hammer down in a situation like that? Or should I work more to make them make hard choices? I confess I like it better if they see that the Valley of Deadly Avalanches is a shortcut to the castle, but they might not make it if they take the road, and the princess is at stake. If they find an old man there who has had his legs crushed, but it becomes clear that if they dislodge him they will trigger a rockfall that will almost certainly end in doom. And then if they do it, rolling saves versus incredible damage that could one-shot them. But those situations tend to be more complex to execute in a satisfactory manner, for me at least. The danger is properly telegraphed there, each step is a choice of calculated risk towards their doom. But it has the downside of being incredibly unreliable. They probably have some skill or spell to remove the man without disturbing the rocks, or to speed their travel on the road, or somesuch.

Thoughts?

[toapat]

Thoughts?

i think youre thinking this over too hard. its a Hunter Ranger, a Squishy Fighter, and and Arcane Trickster. Throw them a Archmage(give it a good DPS cantrip like Eldrich blast) with a tanky bodyguard and they will suffer issues as something that can go toe to toe with them fights them. Ramp up the literal difficulty before you ramp up the death checks

but understand that theres no magic bullet solution to a Dm's problem. it takes years of practice to learn how much quantative power you are facing, and alot of the creatures which truly present great threats. If youre pure evil you can just throw a lone intellect devourer and if it kills the rogue the entire party dies then and there

[Specter]

The answer is math.

Calculate how much average damage your PCs deal, heal, or prevent (with stuff like invisibility and etc.). A 5th-level Ranger with Hunter's Mark and a bow will deal on average, 12 per attack (1d6+1d8+4), for a total of 24.

Calculate your encounters so that every foe will deal enough average damage to kill the PCs after a certain number of rounds, and make their defensive capacities (hp, ac, etc.) average on lasting for the same number of rounds. So considering all martials, if the party can deal 120 avg dmg per round, your group of monsters will need at least 360hp to make it dangerous, and will need to deal 1/3 of the party's hp on avg per turn.

Have fun!

[Sigreid]

I still think the real answer is for the enemy to play aggressively. Put the party on the defensive. Put them in a situation where they have to run and hide. Have the badguy and his cronies set the pace. Wear them down. You don't have to have a massive alpha strike wipe them out, just keep the pressure on them so they have less and less of their resources available but, and this is important, figure out by the rules how the bad guy is doing it. How is he keeping tabs on them? How does he know when to strike? How is he keeping his own resources fresh while depleting theirs? Do it right and instead of one big trap you get the running from one oh-#@%$ how are we going to survive this to the next. Remember things like hit dice don't replenish completely after one long rest. Wear them down.

Edited to add: Have the bad guy cut off their allies. Take everything and everyone that could give them refuge from them one at a time. Again, figure out how the bad guy can do it using the existing rules. This shouldn't be a "because the DM said so" kind of thing.

[Sitri]

I didn't read all the above, but if you are up for some rule tweaking that would allow you to keep almost everything else the same, I have seen or used the following:

1. Death Saves are not made until someone interacts with the dying. You are still counting them all up, but you don't actually make them until someone comes round to make it better. This prevents a lot of metagaming and puts more pressure on action economy in deadly situations. I REALLY like this one.

2. Lingering injuries. I think the DMS guide discusses this, but I did a slight mod to the table provided for the game I ran. I think if you leave it as is you will have many characters who would rather retire a character as "better off dead" than keep playing it. I don't know if this would seem as satisfying to your players a a "true kill" but it is an option.

3. No yoyos. My current DM has a rule that if you drop 3 times in a single fight you are just dead. The seventh "Healing Word brought me to life again, I attack." Is kind of annoying and unrealistic.

[Gastronomie]

Using all sorts of control effects (especially spells) can make encounters both difficult and interesting. Enemies that use Wall of Fire + Eldritch Repelling Blast, stuff like that. A personal favorite is the Roper.

A shocking moment may be when a party member drops to 0 HP… and the next second, the enemy Caster uses Magic Missile on him. Three automatic hits. Death. It will surely be something the players remember for a very long time, perhaps even becoming something of a trauma. Especially since it's a really well-known, cheap and common-as-dirt spell that does the job, not something as rare as Power Word Kill or Meteor Swarm.

[ClintACK]

I think this question will be a little unpopular on this particular forum, but I'll try anyway.

How do I make my games more lethal in an interesting and entertaining way?

See, my players accuse me of being a bit of a Care Bear because I haven't killed any PC's in a very long time...

Define "kill". Are your players dropping to zero hps from time to time, but getting healed before they die? Or are they needing the occasional Raise Dead, and then complaining that they don't stay dead?

For the first, try the occasional irrational monster -- that one ogre (the one with TWF) really, really doesn't like the dwarf and just keeps pounding on him after he goes down. Bonus points if it's a personal enemy from his backstory.

The second is harder. But one thing to try is leaning hard on the "If the creature’s soul is both willing and at liberty to rejoin the body" clause. Ask the player of the deceased character whether his character is happy in Valhalla after his honorable death in battle... the character can only be raised if the soul is willing.

And re: making it not out-of-the-blue... You need to give the party competing desires. (I don't really want to fight that Balrog Balor, but if I don't it will destroy the village and kill everyone. I don't really want to brave the dragon's lair, but that pile of gold is so shiny!) A character should be killed fighting a battle where they've chosen not to run away. The player should know the fight is hard, potentially lethal, but choose to stay. Then they get either a heroic victory or a heroic death. Either way it's good story.

Edit: And I love Sitri's first suggestion, if Healing-Word Whackamole is your problem.

[Kane0]

*Rubs hands together* Oooohooohhohoho lets see what I've got in my bag of tricks for you...
Have you tried any of these yet? The name of the game is 'Death Spiral'

1. Exhaustion levels
Lets start simple. Instead of (just) HP damage throw in an effect or two that gives PCs levels of exhaustion. They don't go away unless they take long rests or use up more powerful healing effects, it weakens the PCs progressively and in interesting ways plus there is a great minigame that can be made out of how far you can push them before they die (6 is the magic number!) or literally cannot push on.

2. Max HP reduction
Steal a move from the Wight's repertoire, reducing a players maximum HP instead of their current HP might not seem all that lethal, but the trick is building it up so they are working with half or less than they usually have.

3. Hit Dice reduction
Much like number 2 above, this might see counter intuitive. That is until they have a rest and don't heal nearly as much as they were hoping too, having to expend precious resources to keep their HP topped up. Ramp up that attrition!

4. Death Saves
Getting significantly more deadly, how about attacking death saving throws directly? Its kind of like those old drowning rules nobody really liked, three strikes and you're out!

5. Ability Scores
Good ol' fashioned ability damage/drain, just like mum used to make. You can tailor this to the party, attacking their strong or weak stats as you see fit. Just make sure they can recover somehow, via Rests and restorations.

6. Reducing proficiency bonus
Very similar to Ability score reduction, this carries the benefit of hitting them on everything they are good at as well as being easy to track for you. All you have to know is their level!

7. Aging
Aging (in both directions) is a fun and well established way of offing mortals. It even appears to be a boon sometimes, to begin with at least

Any of those tickle your fancy?

[raspin]

The issue I see with making things more lethal, at least in my experience, is once an encounter tips into a difficulty where it's actually genuinely lethal it's TPK lethal.

Beyond the first couple of levels it seems really hard to kill a PC unless all the PCs die as it's much harder/unfair to do so much damage to them that they end up in full hp negative, and if any pc is knocked down the others will pick them up/stabalize them so it seems a dangerous "all or none" gambit.

I do like the idea above of save vs yoyo as this does add individual threat. I think a con save whenever you get up with a fail adding a level of exhaustion. On the 3rd time yyou try and get up you roll a con save again with success equaling a level of exhaustion and failure meaning death. Then rinse repeat until death via exhaustion, failed save or they stop falling over that should help ramp up the danger.

[toapat]

The answer is math.

eh, not really in Dungeons and Dragons. the game uses tens of dicerolls to determine combat, not hundreds and thousands. statistical normalization doesnt have enough resources to truly equalize the effects during combat. Math gives us tools for approximating effectiveness, but DMs need a feel of the player's luck to properly tune encounters

[Hrugner]

The issue I see with making things more lethal, at least in my experience, is once an encounter tips into a difficulty where it's actually genuinely lethal it's TPK lethal.

Beyond the first couple of levels it seems really hard to kill a PC unless all the PCs die as it's much harder/unfair to do so much damage to them that they end up in full hp negative, and if any pc is knocked down the others will pick them up/stabalize them so it seems a dangerous "all or none" gambit.

I do like the idea above of save vs yoyo as this does add individual threat. I think a con save whenever you get up with a fail adding a level of exhaustion. On the 3rd time yyou try and get up you roll a con save again with success equaling a level of exhaustion and failure meaning death. Then rinse repeat until death via exhaustion, failed save or they stop falling over that should help ramp up the danger.

This is the problem inspiring me, and probably others, to encourage attrition based lethality.

Another solution for the yoyo problem/meta gaming death save problem, would be to require a full rest to reduce failed death saves by one rather than resetting to 0 upon being healed or stabilizing.

[Shaofoo]

Do players also have easy access to outside resources? Can they just rest up at any time so that they can encounter nearly everything at 100%? Maybe limit what they can get or do, make potions a very limited resource, even make resting a very hard thing to accomplish outside of a safe town (and maybe not even that).

Also another thing is to always make things timed in the world. The environment always changes even when the players aren't looking at it. Let the enemies come up with ways to counter specific PCs if they delay too long in what they are doing (which in a high level campaign should be possible), this works even if the players can jump into a pocket dimension to rest up.

Also speaking of pocket dimensions and safe spaces maybe ban such spells as well.

[JellyPooga]

1. Death Saves are not made until someone interacts with the dying. You are still counting them all up, but you don't actually make them until someone comes round to make it better. This prevents a lot of metagaming and puts more pressure on action economy in deadly situations. I REALLY like this one.

I very much like this idea and may well steal it! I might allow the downed PC to make a "see if I come around" roll every three or four rounds (every 1d3+2 rounds, perhaps?), where you'd roll all the dice you would have to see if you get that natural 20 or three successful saves to stabilize. Or perhaps, as GM, just make the Saves in secret and only let the player know if he gets that nat-20.

[Segev]

My strongest piece of advice is to drop your aversion to resurrection type magics. Such magics are the ally of the DM who wants continuity of PCs in his game while satisfying players who want more lethality. Embrace them. Don't make them cheaper than they already are, but be happy they're there.

When the PCs have one of their number down, and they have to drag his corpse out so they can get to a cleric, it will slow them and will give them concerns. Their dead companion isn't "really" dead until they can't save his body.


That out of the way, increasing lethality, I find, is mostly about not pulling your punches. Think less in terms of the "appropriate" CR for your party, and instead think about the resources of the people and monsters in the PCs' collective way. Build your adventure and campaign with bigger and smaller threats. Bigger and smaller plots implemented by bigger and smaller fish. Don't worry if the CR is "ramped up" by virtue of you deciding that the current adversaries have access to higher-CR monsters. Do let the PCs, if they make the effort, learn some idea of what they're up against, and they'll gauge risks accordingly. They will even define mission objectives they think they can pull off.

That minotaur in the heart of an ever-shifting maze may well be too strong for them, but perhaps they only need to get past him rather than beat him in a fight. Avoiding him entirely would be a "perfect win," and running successfully if they meet him would be a victory of its own.

By having challenges that run the CR gamut, you allow the players to pick the challenges they want. Then, you're not ramping up the CR; they are.

Play your fights intelligently and in character. Some monsters might go for the kill even over self-preservation. Don't shy away from piling on to one PC if he's a big threat.

And whenever you encounter a PC power you find problematic, think how your monsters can use it...or think about scenarios they'd NEED it to solve, and put those out there.

But if your players want more lethality, the solution is to let them find it. And be happy that you can let them bring back their fallen brethren. (And that the limitations on THAT can make for their own challenges!)

[pwykersotz]

My strongest piece of advice is to drop your aversion to resurrection type magics.


That out of the way, increasing lethality, I find, is mostly about not pulling your punches. Think less in terms of the "appropriate" CR for your party, and instead think about the resources of the people and monsters in the PCs' collective way. Build your adventure and campaign with bigger and smaller threats. Bigger and smaller plots implemented by bigger and smaller fish. Don't worry if the CR is "ramped up" by virtue of you deciding that the current adversaries have access to higher-CR monsters. Do let the PCs, if they make the effort, learn some idea of what they're up against, and they'll gauge risks accordingly. They will even define mission objectives they think they can pull off.

I think this advice is a large piece of what I was looking for, thank you.

Don't worry too much about my aversion to resurrection, that was a small aside and I don't patch things unless they become large issues. I'll leave it alone.

Allowing the party to bite off what they think they can chew fits the mold perfectly. It's the perfect way to let them attempt dangerous challenges if they like without feeling like I'm forcing the matter. I can prep scenarios of differing potency and let them choose to go for glory if they like. I already do this in terms of scope, they can choose a myriad of avenues, but making them widely differing difficulties is not something I've generally done.

Are there any resources you know of that might provide a launching pad for designing adventures this way? Or any common pitfalls you know of that I might be able to avoid? It's simple in concept, but I suspect there's a few devils in the details.

[Segev]

I think this advice is a large piece of what I was looking for, thank you.

Don't worry too much about my aversion to resurrection, that was a small aside and I don't patch things unless they become large issues. I'll leave it alone.Glad it helps! :smallsmile:


Allowing the party to bite off what they think they can chew fits the mold perfectly. It's the perfect way to let them attempt dangerous challenges if they like without feeling like I'm forcing the matter. I can prep scenarios of differing potency and let them choose to go for glory if they like. I already do this in terms of scope, they can choose a myriad of avenues, but making them widely differing difficulties is not something I've generally done.

Are there any resources you know of that might provide a launching pad for designing adventures this way? Or any common pitfalls you know of that I might be able to avoid? It's simple in concept, but I suspect there's a few devils in the details.

The Angry GM's articles on a Hex Crawl may be useful. What you're doing with this kind of approach may not require a full-fledged hex map, but it's essentially a "site-based adventure." The "site" need not be literal geography, but can be "approach" instead.

In essence, anything that tells you about setting up the world so the PCs can explore it will likely have good advice for how to approach this.

When I contemplate this kind of adventure design, I usually try to do it - if not in a "sandbox" mindset - with the idea that the world exists, and that things happen even if the PCs aren't doing anything. This lets me think in terms of what the bad guys (and good guys, and any other important movers or shakers) are doing. The plot isn't "the players will learn this, then thwart that, then encounter him and have to make a choice," but rather "the NPCs are doing this, this, and this. I know that, without player intervention, X, Y, and Z will occur...and I should check to make sure that the NPCs' interacting plans will have results I am aware of." You should know if there are NPCs whose plans will conflict, and how those conflicts will resolve if the PCs don't intervene. You should have a good idea how things will go if the PCs prevent the conflict (allowing one or the other plan to go off without the hitch of the interaction).

In essence, you're writing the, if not "ideal" situation for the bad guys, then at least "what will happen if there are no PCs."

Knowing that, and having a solid idea of why things fall out that way, you can then allow the PCs' interventions to change things. You know what obstacles the PCs will face when they decide to go to any particular location or interact with any particular plot or thwart any villainous goal. Ideally, you'll also have a good idea of what will expose the plans to the PCs. You'll want more than 3 clues for each element, because you want 3 that will be apropos to the PCs.

Sounds daunting, but you probably have most of this groundwork laid, given what you've said.

The other angle I'd be aware of is that this kind of approach - letting the players pick their challenge and design their mission objectives to tailor the challenge - requires that the players have information about what they're getting into. The "classic" dungeon crawl usually involved a LOT of information gathering and scouting before the actual expedition. Each mission will take on this kind of flavor, if your players are "doing it right."

Make it clear OOC that you're no longer specifically tailoring CRs to their levels. Challenges are what they are, and there may be multiple ways to accomplish things and multiple things they can choose as their priorities. Some things may be more than they can handle yet, so either need special prep or careful planning (or to be put off).

If they know this going in, then they know that their tasks now include figuring out what they can handle and what they really WANT out of any particular activity. Because THEIR objectives need not be "thwart the bad guy head on." Maybe they "win" just by eavesdropping on his next phase plans, even if they don't do a thing to stop him from killing his rival bad guy while they listen to him gloat. As an example.

A lot of the shift here is in whether YOU are planning their victory conditions, or they are. Because the CR might stay the same if they face it head-on, but not all victory conditions require facing it head-on.

[raspin]

That out of the way, increasing lethality, I find, is mostly about not pulling your punches. Think less in terms of the "appropriate" CR for your party, and instead think about the resources of the people and monsters in the PCs' collective way. Build your adventure and campaign with bigger and smaller threats. Bigger and smaller plots implemented by bigger and smaller fish. Don't worry if the CR is "ramped up" by virtue of you deciding that the current adversaries have access to higher-CR monsters. Do let the PCs, if they make the effort, learn some idea of what they're up against, and they'll gauge risks accordingly. They will even define mission objectives they think they can pull off.

That minotaur in the heart of an ever-shifting maze may well be too strong for them, but perhaps they only need to get past him rather than beat him in a fight. Avoiding him entirely would be a "perfect win," and running successfully if they meet him would be a victory of its own.

By having challenges that run the CR gamut, you allow the players to pick the challenges they want. Then, you're not ramping up the CR; they are.

Just to play devils advocate; does that involve a lot of meta gaming on your players part? Do they all sit in the inn with their Monster Manual "what CR is a minotaur? Do you think we can take it? Let me fire up kobold fight club on my ye old smart phone and ill find out". :-p

Seriously though, do you just tell them "you think that minotaur might be very tough for you" and how does it work say with an unknown place to explore? Or threats that can't be measured by a single monster. An abandoned mine, for instance, where someone's gone missing but they have no idea what to expect. How do you inform then it's going to be a hell of a tough slog without spoilers?

Just curious...as you kind of touch on ig in your last answer without specifics.

[JAL_1138]

When it's plausible, let them find out the hard way and retreat. It works quite well to make players paranoid about fighting that kind of monster or delving into that dungeon again.

Knowledge checks and other information gathering can give them a hint like "you've heard that this was an extensive mining complex in its heyday, before it was overrun, and that people tend not to come back alive from it now" or "you know that [insert monster type here]s can potentially be very dangerous, even for adventurers much more experienced than you."

[some guy]

How about instead increasing lethality, increase nasty permanent things monsters can do?
If Limbripper the Troll hits you with two claw attacks, make a Con save or lose an arm or leg (or traps that do that, or an enemy with a vorpal sword). Bubu Yugu the witch will curse you with al kinds of strange curses (can only tell lies/ can only see things in darkness or shadows/etc), that need a Remove Curse and a specific condition to be cured (kill a king, eat a troll's liver you killed with your bare hands). Let them drink from the chaos goblins' blessing pits for a random mutation (metamorphica is great for this (http://www.drivethrurpg.com/product/115703/The-Metamorphica-Classic-Edition).
They probably still will win and survive, but have a constant reminder of the encounter.

[Sabeta]

Because of Bounded Accuracy more monsters, no matter how lethal, are more dangerous than a single tough guy. You can probably kill a level 20 with 100 (maybe less) commoners armed with Bows. Base 10 attributes, 10 or less Health, but if they all fire off at the same time you could expect an average of 20 crits.

Not saying do exactly that, but it should lead you in the right direction. You could also try running simulations to see how a battle might go before you run it, and just tune every encounter so that someone blacks out every other battle or so.

[raspin]

Because of Bounded Accuracy more monsters, no matter how lethal, are more dangerous than a single tough guy. You can probably kill a level 20 with 100 (maybe less) commoners armed with Bows. Base 10 attributes, 10 or less Health, but if they all fire off at the same time you could expect an average of 20 crits.

Not saying do exactly that, but it should lead you in the right direction. You could also try running simulations to see how a battle might go before you run it, and just tune every encounter so that someone blacks out every other battle or so.

I think the point is its not hard to make things hard, or kill all the pcs perma - dead. It's making things hard enough that there is a chance to kill one pc rather than TPK. I think it's much easier to TPK than kill one pc due to mechanics, if everyone doesn't die then no-one does, which is a bit odd really. It's very admirable that they all live or die together but most DMs aren't hugely keen on TPKs and, without a tenable threat, it's a lot less interesting. For that reason I think I favour a mechanical fix.

[CursedRhubarb]

A great way to lead to a death is to force a split in the party. Some good ways to do this are via a trap closing a door between party members, trapdoor to another area, collapsing ceiling, or the room with multiple tunnels and each has a lever at the end that must be pulled at the same time as the others.

Once separated, have a path for each designed to target their weaknesses. They can make it through, but not likely unhurt or even in one piece. Put a rogue up against Strength challenges like lifting rock walls that block doorways or trying to lift a heavy flagstone to disarm a trap. Failure on the check or save resulting in crushing a hand or foot. Crushed hand? Traps and locks get a +5 to +10 DC raise. Crushed foot? Your speed is reduced to 5ft. Fail once and almost guaranteed to keep failing until they die.

Put a barbarian in a hall filled with past adventurers corpses and ghosts that try and posses them. Fail a check and the ghost try to lead them to death pits.

Hit a wizard with a feeblemind spell or trap them with a bunch of grapplers in an arena under the effects of a silence spell. (Or death by kobold swarm in a silenced area to rub salt in the wound)

Trap your cleric in a rust monster holding area and watch as they try and escape from 20+ of the things while wearing a tin can. If they escape, they will be minus that fancy armor and be vulnerable to getting hit now.

Again, take limbs. Take eyes. Poison and disease them.

Get one enslaved to a vampire and they become cattle.

Get them alone in what appears to be an empty tunnel, only to stumble into the middle of an undead horde. Alone against 20+ zombies, a couple ghouls, a ghast, zombie beholder, and a mummy or two. Toss in a banshee if at higher levels. Would be a bad day for any adventurer.

[JeffreyGator]

Give them protection tasks/encounters.

Escort a prince(ss) somewhere. Said character might be very squishy and can't die. So the characters have to spend resources on this NPC.

This potentially gives them options of dying (gloriously) or failing the mission.

[Tanarii]

What sorts of challenges are actually lethal to mid or high level D&D characters that aren't just a ramp up of CR, GM-screws, or plot enforced death? In short, how do YOU provide legit and hefty opportunity for death for your players?If you're planning out the CR based on the party, you're inherently running a game where chance of death (in 5e) is low. If you instead plan CR based on region, zone, or dungeon level, and let the players choose where to go and what to face, then they have a much higher chance of death. (Edit: as long as you don't give them too many opportunities to rest easily.)

Basically, there are two ways to look at the CR / Encounter difficulty / Adventuring Day tables. One is to use them as a source for planning your encounters / adventuring day around the party. The other is to get a feeling for how likely any particular group of PCs that come together are likely to survive based on the level at which they choose to go into the encounters, and how far they choose to push in a given adventuring day. ie a guideline to build your adventures vs a guideline for if the PCs will have a self-inflicted TPK. In the latter case it's incumbent on you as the DM to start telegraphing the hell out of it when they're getting in over their heads, otherwise it's a DM-screw.

Of course, you might not want to restructure a one-party-focused (typically for narrative), linear, non-sandbox or combat-as-sport style game into a sandbox or combat-as-war game. But you can still provide the same feeling by occasionally putting in some higher than normal (but not excessively so) CR encounters, and more importantly longer than normal adventuring days where they have to extend themselves.

Out of curiosity, is the party facing approximately the DMG guidelines for an adventuring day? Or have you adjusted the rest rules if they aren't?

[JellyPooga]

Inspired by CursedRhubarb, Ghoul-Rush the party. No one likes fighting Ghouls.

For a lvl.15 party (by the book), a Deadly encounter is 6,400xp per character. Assuming a x4 multiplier for 15+ foes, we can just call is 6,400 divided by 200 (Ghoul = Challenge 1) for 32 Ghouls per character.

128 Ghouls vs. a party of 4 is a little hard to handle, so switch out a few for Ghasts (4 Ghasts = 9 Ghouls)...let's call it 14 Ghouls and 8 Ghasts per character = 56 Ghouls and 32 Ghasts.

This is still a little hard to handle, so let's chuck a couple of Wights in too; no-one likes being the victim of a Critical Life Drain (and with that many saves vs. paralysis it will be a Crit). 2 Wights = 7 Ghouls, so let's do some jiggery pokery...

So for each player, we could have 1 Wight (700xp), 8 Ghasts (8x450=3,600xp) and 10 Ghouls (10x200=2,000xp), for 6,300xp. Chuck in a couple of Zombies ('cos Wights and Zombies go hand-in-hand) to round that up to 6,400xp on the nose.

With a party of four, that's;
4 Wights
32 Ghasts
40 Ghouls
8 Zombies

I don't care how good your Con save is or how well prepared or what AoE spells you have, that many Saves vs. Paralysis and Poison is a tough fight. Fail even one and you're Zombie-chow (average HP at lvl.15 is about 100; 8 auto-crits dealing somewhere in the 10-20 range should about do the trick).

Arrange it as an ambush (I favour the "party-sized pit trap" that dumps everyone right into the clutches of the Ghoul Horde...nothing like dealing a little fall damage before a hard fight!) and your players will hate you for it.

This, alone, is not too horrific a challenge for good players, but it will deplete their A-game resources (they can't afford for it to be a protracted fight; the risk of Paralysis is too great). If the next fight, before they get a chance to recuperate, is the Necromancer or Lich (or Necromantic Shadow Dragon Lich) responsible...you could well have a couple of player deaths on your tally.

Introduce a couple of NPC's that the PC's need to protect while you're at it; nothing forces a character death quicker than having to babysit an NPC through a horde-fight.

[Segev]

Just to play devils advocate; does that involve a lot of meta gaming on your players part? Do they all sit in the inn with their Monster Manual "what CR is a minotaur? Do you think we can take it? Let me fire up kobold fight club on my ye old smart phone and ill find out". :-p

Seriously though, do you just tell them "you think that minotaur might be very tough for you" and how does it work say with an unknown place to explore? Or threats that can't be measured by a single monster. An abandoned mine, for instance, where someone's gone missing but they have no idea what to expect. How do you inform then it's going to be a hell of a tough slog without spoilers?

Just curious...as you kind of touch on ig in your last answer without specifics.

While a certain amount of metagaming may be acceptable in this case, I don't think it essential. The idea is that they gather information about what monsters there are. Learn what kinds of threats they pose. Gauge them against other monsters driven out by them.

But most importantly, research their known capabilities. "Minotaurs are enormously strong and hunt prey that is lost in their labrynthine homes" gives an idea of a physical bruiser that has a maze-like lair and presumably is better at navigating it than strangers are. Information gathering can give an idea of the largest group that's been lost and/or driven out. And missions with a definite plan for retreat if they are in over their heads are the last step if they don't really know the strength of whatever they're pursuing.

[mephnick]

If you're planning out the CR based on the party, you're inherently running a game where chance of death (in 5e) is low. If you instead plan CR based on region, zone, or dungeon level, and let the players choose where to go and what to face, then they have a much higher chance of death.

The second is so much more satisfying I've never understood why people bother with the first. Stumbling across an encounter out of your league and surviving is my favourite thing as a player and DM. Thinking "f---,f---,f---" as my party decides to go just a little farther into a Death Tyrant lair to find loot, then barely surviving the encounter only because the random rays hit the exact right targets (Sleep Immunity, Immutable Form etc) is just a great memory. "Here's your third medium encounter of the day." doesn't quite have the same effect.

[pwykersotz]

Out of curiosity, is the party facing approximately the DMG guidelines for an adventuring day? Or have you adjusted the rest rules if they aren't?

My party faces thing significantly out of the normal threat range from time to time. A CR 10 as a party of 4 level 5's, Three CR 5's as a party of 3 level 8's, etc. They're tough, but those don't tend to be as challenging as the single CR 5 vs 3 level 8's, with terrain and lighting favoring the enemy and played smart. I do a smattering of many types of challenges. Characters are not infrequently dropped to 0hp.

That's why I don't really think advice about ramping up CR is the key, I can challenge the party in a fight. I can harry them and deplete their resources. I can send terrible creatures their way. I'm pretty sure the issue is not with those mechanics. Heck, I created Angry DM Paragon monsters that were Helmed Horrors that "died" and transformed into Banshees and wailed, and characters at 0hp were immediately targeted for attack so they would actually die. I set 4 of them against the party at level 7, and then 3 of them plus an Archmage at level 8. In the moment they were scary, but the party didn't lose anyone as they had wisely kept the Cleric back and each had some potions. They lost no one permanently, and so my reputation stays intact.

I think the problem is with me and my framing of challenges in some way. I think Segev's point is great, but after talking with my players they tell me that I already do a some of what he suggests pretty well. I am convinced I can improve in that area though, so I'm happy for that opportunity, and that's at least one piece of the puzzle that I can work on.

I also get the feeling that the D&D system might be partially to blame, as much as I love it. I've read up on a lot of grittier systems (Apocalypse World and FATE are the ones I like most) and I've noticed how it changes the dynamic heavily. Of course that's just a guess, as I haven't really had the opportunity to run one of those games and see how it works firsthand, but it might be part of the issue.

[Strill]

Send them against Tucker's Kobolds (http://tuckerskobolds.com/).

[Tanarii]

That's why I don't really think advice about ramping up CR is the key, I can challenge the party in a fight. I can harry them and deplete their resources. I can send terrible creatures their way. I'm pretty sure the issue is not with those mechanics.Given you didn't answer the question as to if you use the DMG guidelines on an adventuring day, and instead focused on details of encounter, I'm still not clear if that is the case.


I also get the feeling that the D&D system might be partially to blame, as much as I love it.Well yes. The assumption of modern D&Ders is that (usually) the players won't die unless they do something to get in over their heads (ie act stupid) or the DM does something to challenge them beyond the expectations for their level. (Edit: And to be more specific, it's overextending themselves at the adventuring day level which is particularly dangerous.) 5e DMG guidelines are structured with that assumption in mind. If you want a more old-school lethality, you have to either ignore them occasionally, or stop building your encounters & adventuring days to a specific party & level and let the players overextend themselves.

Also a common assumption (and definitely included in AL play), that if they do, they've got the ability to get themselves Raised (10 days to get the body back to town, 500 gp + casting fees needed).

[JAL_1138]

You could run a low-level AD&D game, starting at first level. Roll stats, roll HP (including at first level, no taking max; also, non-Warriors were capped at +2 from Con, and HP bonuses didn't start until 14 Con (instead of 12) in 2e; not sure how 1e handled it), and die instantly at 0HP--no saves, no negatives (although there was an optional rule for negatives, I think in the DMG). Bring spare character sheets. Somebody will likely die in one hit pretty early on.

[Tanarii]

You could run a low-level AD&D game, starting at first level. Roll stats, roll HP (including at first level, no taking max; also, non-Warriors were capped at +2 from Con, and HP bonuses didn't start until 14 Con (instead of 12) in 2e; not sure how 1e handled it), and die instantly at 0HP--no saves, no negatives (although there was an optional rule for negatives, I think in the DMG). Bring spare character sheets. Somebody will likely die in one hit pretty early on.For that matter, just making 0hp = death would massively increase lethality.

[Shaofoo]

I also get the feeling that the D&D system might be partially to blame, as much as I love it. I've read up on a lot of grittier systems (Apocalypse World and FATE are the ones I like most) and I've noticed how it changes the dynamic heavily. Of course that's just a guess, as I haven't really had the opportunity to run one of those games and see how it works firsthand, but it might be part of the issue.

I don't think D&D in and of itself is supposed to be high lethality. I think it is expected that the group will be in one piece even without access to resurrection. Of course you can tweak this so that you create meat grinders but by the rules D&D wants players to see through the end.

Another thing that I wonder that when the players say that they want their characters to feel like they might die that they mean that they want the other characters to die while they themselves stick around and be the last man standing. While I am not saying that they want the other to die directly and will team kill anyone but rather that they just want to see some gore at the other person's expense. I did read a couple of horror stories where a player complains about wanting more of a challenge and when the DM does so and ends up with the character dying the player pouts and sulks.

[MrStabby]

A few things have been mentioned. I throw them in again for complete agreement. Others I add:

1) Play enemies smart. A group of drider might be a level appropriate encounter. The group using hit and run tactics, attacking at night using their superior darkvision to attack unseen with advantage can be devastating.

2) Split the party. Even if it doesn't actually end up more lethal, it will often feel more dangerous.

3) Have the world reflect the abilities of the party. If the spell "fireball" exists in the world then military tactics should reflect that it is an available threat to the enemy and so on. This is just having an internally consistent world not "metagaming". Every caster should know counterspell if they can unless you are running an explicitly low magic world.

4) Don't have the enemies be purely passive/defensive. "You walk into a room, see enemies roll for initiative"is fine for a few encounters. "person on watch spats a shadowy set of figures in the cam in the middle of the night, they try to shout a warning but find a "silence" spell has been cast over the area" can be a more threatening prospect and represents enemies actually planning and the PCs being the ones without a plan. Don't be afraid to have enemies scry on the PCs.

5) Don't just run MM monsters. Homebrew more and have some nasty abilities. Add more character levels - don't even feel bound by this.

6) Use the environment. Fighting ogres may feel like a routine encounter. Fighting ogres on a precipice over a 200ft drop is a bit more interesting. Even if featherfall is prepared you have still split the party. Water is evil in 5th edition - limited fire damage, disadvantage on a lot of attacks, inability to vocalise spells.

7) Use monks. OK, they don't have to be exactly monks but look at the class and see what makes them work. Take shadowmonks - they get anywhere, they have a good bunch of utility spells for helping themselves and their party, they stun, they can escape to fight again, they are moderately tough and can get great saves. Once you start introducing high initiative enemies that can stun most casters with ease and can bypass walls and other defences as well as using pass without trace to inflict the surprised condition on the PCs then you will have some sense of how to really mess with the party.

8) Use lots of area of effect spells/abilities. A fireball is a nice opener to a fight, but when they still keep coming late on and PCs are bleeding out on the floor every extra failed death save is scary. Spirit guardians can kill those that are down as well as injuring those still standing. The benefit of this is you don't have to weigh up whether the character WOULD target the guy that's down.

9) Do all of this and as often as you like. Why not fight an aquatic hydra who can stun opponents and grapple them underwater and has a cone breath-weapon attack? It's natural habitat is the churned up mud at the bottom of rivers but it can sense enemies with tremorsense. The river sweeps downstream those that fail an athletics check to resist the current. The hydra probably surprises PCs, stunned PCs fail strength checks. The PCs have an encounter that is tougher than raw damage/HP suggests - they are likely to be separated, unable to breathe, unable to cast spells, unable to target the creature, and any PCs that go down are liable to be collaterally caught in the breath weapon attack.



There are rules changes you can make as well.

I am trying to work out some rules for incapacitation. Basically when a PC hits half HP or lower and they take further damage they take needs a con save or they become incapacitated. This means that a PC has to be much more careful of their health and can't just spend HP to achieve their ends. Players can be knocked down quicker and everything seems a bit more dangerous. Whilst down i would allow them to crawl at half speed each turn, so they could still try and get out of danger. OK, it won't really make the game much more lethal (as you still need to hit 0 hp to die and PCs may retreat more) but it might add the edge of danger. OK, it needs some fine tuning but I think it can be part of a riskier game.

[pwykersotz]

Given you didn't answer the question as to if you use the DMG guidelines on an adventuring day, and instead focused on details of encounter, I'm still not clear if that is the case.

Apologies. I do not focus at all on the adventuring day. I might accidentally hit the mark square sometimes, but there are days with one or no encounters, and there are days with well over 10. I used the adventuring day for the first 5e campaign I ran, but found it too stifling for my tastes.

[MrStabby]

Apologies. I do not focus at all on the adventuring day. I might accidentally hit the mark square sometimes, but there are days with one or no encounters, and there are days with well over 10. I used the adventuring day for the first 5e campaign I ran, but found it too stifling for my tastes.

Ah, this could be a bigger issue.

If PCs never have to conserve resources, if using too many resources is a stumble and not a fall then you are creating an exploitable opportunity.

If there are over 10 encounters - then there may be a good chance many do not use up any resources that the party couldn't recover on a short rest anyway.

You might find it useful to do a bit of bookkeeping and see which short/long rest resources get used up by different types of encounter.

[JAL_1138]

Ah, this could be a bigger issue.

If PCs never have to conserve resources, if using too many resources is a stumble and not a fall then you are creating an exploitable opportunity.

If there are over 10 encounters - then there may be a good chance many do not use up any resources that the party couldn't recover on a short rest anyway.

You might find it useful to do a bit of bookkeeping and see which short/long rest resources get used up by different types of encounter.

Seconding this. Depleting resources increases the level of fear/paranoia almost more than hitting 0HP or actual death. Throw a couple of Frost Giants and a pack of wolves at a 5th or 6th level party when everyone's out of spells and other resources, and you'll see some panic. Been there, done that, made the death saves; it wasn't pretty. We ran for our lives once they started throwing rocks. Fun* fact: Even on a mount and using the Dash action, you probably can't outrun their throwing range in one turn.

*In the Dwarf Fortress sense of the word

[Segev]

The second is so much more satisfying I've never understood why people bother with the first. People use the "set CR to party level" encounter-chain method because it takes less prep work. Building a world with multiple encounters to choose from and the ability to pick and choose where to go requires setting up all those encounters, placing them in the world, and setting out the hooks and investigative clues for them, and the players may never see a whole lot of them because they'll not choose to pursue them.

Whereas designing tailored encounters for the plot thread your PCs are pursuing, and throwing something together if they step off the anticipated path (still, likely, at their fitting CR, since you're building it right then KNOWING they're encountering it) is easier. You build only what you expect them to see, relying on the illusion that there's a broader world out there being strong enough since they won't actually see that it's actually a painted backdrop just beyond the hills.

Note: I am not denigrating the more tailored approach. "Easier" is not "worse," inherently. Not everybody has the kind of time or patience to do the "explore and find all my encounters" design method. And it can be harder to write a coherent plot with that, as all the "stuff" won't necessarily tie together neatly and there's less thread-progression.


That's why I don't really think advice about ramping up CR is the key, I can challenge the party in a fight. I can harry them and deplete their resources. I can send terrible creatures their way. I'm pretty sure the issue is not with those mechanics. Heck, I created Angry DM Paragon monsters that were Helmed Horrors that "died" and transformed into Banshees and wailed, and characters at 0hp were immediately targeted for attack so they would actually die. I set 4 of them against the party at level 7, and then 3 of them plus an Archmage at level 8. In the moment they were scary, but the party didn't lose anyone as they had wisely kept the Cleric back and each had some potions. They lost no one permanently, and so my reputation stays intact.If you're doing all of this, why do they feel you're not being lethal enough?

Serious question: I feel like we're not seeing the problem correctly. What is it your players say they want but are not getting?


I think the problem is with me and my framing of challenges in some way. I think Segev's point is great, but after talking with my players they tell me that I already do a some of what he suggests pretty well. I am convinced I can improve in that area though, so I'm happy for that opportunity, and that's at least one piece of the puzzle that I can work on.Just reinforcing this question, I suppose, but what is it they say is lacking, if you're already doing this stuff well? When you say you're not framing them right, what do you mean? Just not describing them in frightening enough detail? Or what do you mean by "framing," here?


So to wrap it up, I guess I'll just repeat my question and suggest you ask it very directly of your players: what is it that they WANT that they are not GETTING? This isn't meant to be a complaint. "What do you people want!? Geeze!" It's meant to be genuinely trying to get to the bottom of it. "More challenging" sounds like it is not, in truth, what they're asking for, if all the ways of making it more challenging are already being done to your players' satisfaction.

I find that it's often difficult to really identify a source of dissatisfaction, but that it's crucial to do so to solve the right problem. Too many game designers and (to a lesser or greater extent) GMs listen to the surface complaint, or notice a surface problem, and try to solve that. But the "solution" just gets worked around or exacerbates the dissatisfaction, because the "solved problem" was actually a reaction to a more intrinsic issue that still needs to be worked around.

e.g. you don't eliminate gold-for-real-cash farmers by banning gold farming. You eliminate gold-for-real-cash farmers by finding a way for those who'd use their services to do so in ways that are not harming the economy of your game, and thus undermining the market.

[IShouldntBehere]

My strongest piece of advice is to drop your aversion to resurrection type magics. Such magics are the ally of the DM who wants continuity of PCs in his game while satisfying players who want more lethality. Embrace them. Don't make them cheaper than they already are, but be happy they're there.

When the PCs have one of their number down, and they have to drag his corpse out so they can get to a cleric, it will slow them and will give them concerns. Their dead companion isn't "really" dead until they can't save his body.

The consumer rarely knows what they want. I'm almost certain what's missing from the OPs games is not "Lethality" or resurrection magic. This is just something the players have been conditioned to think will be the solution to their problems.High Lethality with Resurrection in play isn't lethality. Death you can come back from isn't death. If folks are pining for "Lethality with Resurrection" what they're really looking for is difficulty " " " Death " " " is just the particular tool D&D tends to (clumsily) use for this.

What they're looking for is recoverable loss states, as they provide context and meaning to their wins. Win all the time and winning is meaningless. That want to be able to lose, pay some penalty for that loss and try again next time. That doesn't mean one has to throw the finality of death under the bus to achieve this.

[Tanarii]

If your parties aren't facing approximately then adventuring days worth of challenges in an adventuring day, they're very unlikely to risk death. Roughly. YMMV based on party composition because different classes recover resources on different rests. But in general D&D is designed with the underlying assumption of combat resource depletion not only in a given encounter, but across multiple encounters.

Couple of easy things that can be done, most already mentioned:
1) focus on upping the challenge beyond the supposed CR/Difficulty. Terrain. Hordes of low CR creatures tend to be very challenging. Specific creatures that target party weaknesses or just have nasty effects or tactical abilities.

2) raise the CR to make things more deadly. Note, if you do this, you're probably going to make things more "swingy". Battle will suddenly go from "we got this" to "**** **** **** we're all gonna die" in a round or two with little warning.

3) use the rest variant. An adventuring day doesn't have to equal an in game day, a short rest doesn't have to equal an hour. It's in the DMG for a reason.

You can even switch it depending on location. After playing around with it, I personally use slow rest in safe borderlands, normal rest variant in the wilderness, and fast rest variant in dungeons.

If your players can handle the lack of simulation for rests, you can just go full gamist: "rest" (ie recharging resources) occur when you declare them as a DM. Declare a Long Rest when they've faced resource depleting encounters (not just "combat") equal to their adventuring day XP. Declare a short rest 1/3 of the way to that amount, and 2/3 of the way to that amount.

(I found players were okay with switching based on region, since they mental switch gears as they enter them anyway. But when I suggested this too many complained it would 'break verisimilitude'. I also decided I don't like it because it's basically a super-version of tailoring the adventuring day to a specific party.)

(Edit2: also a historical note: my understanding is originally 1/day originally generally meant 1/session. Your group went into the dungeon at the start of the session, knowing they needed to get out by the end, because staying in the dungeon was a death sentence. So the resource recharge ability was you got to use certain things (mainly spells) once in each session.)



Note: I am not denigrating the more tailored approach. "Easier" is not "worse," inherently. Not everybody has the kind of time or patience to do the "explore and find all my encounters" design method. And it can be harder to write a coherent plot with that, as all the "stuff" won't necessarily tie together neatly and there's less thread-progression.
As someone who is currently running a sandbox with unknown party composition and level ranges before a session: the "easier" method of only designing encounters needed for a subset of possible party levels & size is usually "better". Because you have far more time to spend on things like coherent plots, and making things appear to tie together into something coherent and not an unexplainable mess.

I'm starting to understand why mega dungeons were a thing. And why modules are progressively increasing pre-planned challenge difficulty.

Of course, that's not the same as tailoring things specifically for one party either. It's not a black vs white thing, it's a scale.

Edit: fix quote tags

[pwykersotz]

The consumer rarely knows what they want. I'm almost certain what's missing from the OPs games is not "Lethality" or resurrection magic. This is just something the players have been conditioned to think will be the solution to their problems.High Lethality with Resurrection in play isn't lethality. Death you can come back from isn't death. If folks are pining for "Lethality with Resurrection" what they're really looking for is difficulty " " " Death " " " is just the particular tool D&D tends to (clumsily) use for this.

What they're looking for is recoverable loss states, as they provide context and meaning to their wins. Win all the time and winning is meaningless. That want to be able to lose, pay some penalty for that loss and try again next time. That doesn't mean one has to throw the finality of death under the bus to achieve this.

The first part of this is definitely true. If I knew what was missing or what I wanted precisely, I could add it without trouble. And my players definitely don't know precisely what they want. That's why I'm reaching out to try to identify and provide it.

As for the second part...maybe? One of my players was talking specifically about the ability to challenge your character with a situation where they would possibly/probably end up dead, to be able to bring in another character without losing all connection to the ongoing narrative. Something like having an apprentice who shared some of your goals or somesuch. I think the players are looking for an excuse to take those lethal risks without risking all of the narrative and momentum of the campaign. But they don't just want resurrection to wipe away all their mistakes either. As stated above, that's not real death. This was a subtle aside in our discussions, so I didn't think to bring it up until now.

Again, I think it's a complex and many-layered thing, I don't think there's a silver bullet for it. But I'm willing to try things.

[JAL_1138]

That almost sounds like the players, or at least that particular player, want to switch characters. Maybe they're dissatisfied with their current one or want to try out new mechanical choices. Not necessarily, but if so you can kill both that metaphorical bird and the "resurrection is too easy but permadeath kills continuity" one with one stone.

Something like the old character-trees (or whatever they called them) from 2e-era Dark Sun might be worth looking at. You had a stable of characters you could use, that leveled up as your main one did (not exactly, whenever the active character leveled you could give one level to one of the inactive characters below the active one in level), and could even be swapped out between adventures. The inactive ones were presumed to be off doing other stuff while the active one went on the adventure being played. They could have roleplay connections or not. It sounds like that's what the one player wants to have with the possibility of an apprentice coming in.

As a bonus, you as DM don't have to be as worried about a TPK ruining the campaign, if the characters in the trees all have roleplay connections (e.g., are all relatives, friends, or members of the same mercenary company), since the spares all have reasons to pick up where the TPK'd group left off.

[CursedRhubarb]

When they take their long rest, if they don't have a guard rotation have fun with keeping them from getting rested with rabid raccoon attacks. If they do have guards, add a random encounter where the guard's Passive Perception meets a stealth check. If they fail it, they roll a hard Con save. On a fail they fall unconscious for 1d4 hours and the group wakes to find a random member missing.

Can lead to a fun side quest to save or find their companion and you can have a story for it.
Rival Thieves Guild or Assassin Guild kidnaps the rogue type.
Templar Mage Hunters snag the Wizard/Sorcerer/Warlock.
Anarchists or Monotheistic Cult snag the Cleric or Paladin.
Pretty much anyone for a Fighter or Barbarian.
Feral Lumberjacks take the Druid?
Goblins or Kobolds in service to a dragon snag a Bard. (Music can be considered a treasure they would want for their stash, so they wind up in a gilded cage. Literally)

This would a) Split the party. And b) set up a two sided adventure where the group tries to save the lost member and the lost one tries to escape. All before the missing one gets executed, sacrificed, or is decided will taste good with ketchup.

[IShouldntBehere]

The first part of this is definitely true. If I knew what was missing or what I wanted precisely, I could add it without trouble. And my players definitely don't know precisely what they want. That's why I'm reaching out to try to identify and provide it.

As for the second part...maybe? One of my players was talking specifically about the ability to challenge your character with a situation where they would possibly/probably end up dead, to be able to bring in another character without losing all connection to the ongoing narrative. Something like having an apprentice who shared some of your goals or somesuch. I think the players are looking for an excuse to take those lethal risks without risking all of the narrative and momentum of the campaign. But they don't just want resurrection to wipe away all their mistakes either. As stated above, that's not real death. This was a subtle aside in our discussions, so I didn't think to bring it up until now.

Again, I think it's a complex and many-layered thing, I don't think there's a silver bullet for it. But I'm willing to try things.

Something along the lines of an injury system might be helpful. In D&D/5e there are exactly two outcomes to an armed conflict:

1) You're totally fine after a day of rest.
2) You're dead.

Even a hard-fought win sees you with no long term consequences skipping off into the sunset after a good night's sleep. The next step? The grave (or the rotating door afterlife if you're using the default res mechanics). Imagine if say you replaced the current death saving throw mechanic with the following.

Even putting a relatively lightweight and abstract set of consequences on combat goes a long way to making things "Feel" more dangerous without being so.


Injury: Your maximum hit points are reduced by 5 whenever the following occurs:

You suffer damage equal to greater than half your maximum hit points.
You drop to zero hit points.
You fail a death(injury?) saving throw.

Each time you make fail death saving throw, your maximum hit points are reduced by 5. If your maximum hit points are reduced to 0 you remain comatose until your maximum hit points are restored to their normal limit. Each time you finish a long rest you may make a DC 15 constitution save, restore 1d4+1 of your maximum hit points. If you are tended to for at least 4 hours by an ally that succeeds on a DC 15 medicine check, roll twice and choose the better result.

While your maximum hit points are reduced your proficiency bonus is halved.

Note that the system actually gives no real allow for death, it's 0-lethality at least per mechanics (defenseless comatose people can obviously still have their heads chopped off). That said contrasted with the default approach taking combat risks, or just being on the unlucky side of crits is going to have lasting consequences. Not only does it make failing next time easier, the lower hit points mean true "death spiral" of cascading failures is possible - you'd be wise to avoid risks.

This system is more for illustrative purposes than a real proposal but hopefully it demonstrates you can give them game more real "teeth" without having to kill characters.

[Segev]

I never played this style of game, but I'm given to understand that old D&D classic adventuring style had entire camp-fulls of hirelings who watched pack animals, guarded the camp against exterior bandits, cooked, maintained equipment, etc. for the PCs who were the adventurers delving into the dungeon and bringing out the loot that paid everybody's salary. It was expected that, if a PC died, his player would promote a hireling or other camp follower to be the new one. To this end, some of them were "henchmen" who were loyal followers and students of the adventurers, and a player could grab one of his own or another player's henchman to be his new PC, or even a hireling who reveals sudden new depths of potential

[Tanarii]

You can ad-hoc henchmen back into to 5e fairly easily. Hell, the DMG even has loyalty score rules for NPCs on the party's side.

[mephnick]

I think the stable of character's JAL suggests is the way to go, usually easily done as some kind of adventurer's guild. I'd perhaps fluff it a bit to have the other characters out doing things while not being used and have them all the same current level or really close. Make it clear the game will be more lethal, but death will not end a player's attachment to the campaign. If they really like a character that dies resurrection is still an option, but switching to another character is just as easy. This allows people to pay to keep a single character or switch them up as their attention span requires all while maintaining the difficulty the players say they want.

[Segev]

You could crib the Cohort rules from 3.5's Leadership feat. Let PCs have a cohort. If the main PC dies, the cohort is promoted.

[beargryllz]

It's fine if characters die as long as the players can still contribute, usually another character with unique motivation and features that spice up the game after a tragedy. One of my players lost a character to a freak, max damage critical strike from a stone golem. Poor guy turned into mush instantly :(

I think one thing separating genuine adventure/danger and boring dice mashing is lethality. However, adventurers are implied to survive lethal situations enough to gain levels, infamy, epic artifacts, etc. Can they do it consistently, with no wounds to show for it? Is it really lethal, exciting, adventure?

One time I had to basically prove a point that doing X was lethal and the player did it and then died in about 1 round. As a storyteller, I can't deny that challenging a god-king in combat is anything but foolish. So that happened.

There are some rules in the book that say, for example, 5 of these CR 5 monsters is a *lethal* encounter. Well, guess what else is lethal. 25 of those CR 5 monsters is also lethal. We know that rolling 2d100 on the coin tree is *amazing* treasure, the best possible roll. Why not just take the maximum roll and quadruple it. If players don't take the bait for a monetary award, multiply it by big numbers and drop it in later after they screw around town for an hour trying to haggle on food.

[Cl0001]

If you're talking regular combat, I've found the best way to be deadly is to be smart. Throw your group into a trap so they're closed off and can't escape. Then pair them up against one big strong guy, a couple mid sized guys and a bunch of cannon fodder. Have the big guy take on the tank(s) then have the mid guys go up against the melee damage dealer. Then surround the casters with the fodder. This wreaks havoc on parties, especially if they aren't smart. Also never underestimate the small guys. If skeletons or zombies can get close enough to a caster and surround him, the caster is going to be in a lot of pain. You can also make it harder by adding a debuff caster in as an enemy, making the room dark, difficult terrain etc.