How great should the risk of dying be?

[nrg89]

The first RPG most of you guys probably heard of that I played was D&D 3.5, but before that i played some Swedish RPGs and one thing always stood out to me; the Swedish RPGs were far more deadly than 3.5 was. As in, 3.5 on first level was a cake walk. I've learned from some old timers that the Swedish RPGs are much closer to Old School D&D than modern D&D, which is not so surprising since the engines of the Swedish RPGs haven't changed much in 20-odd years. In both of them, you just have to expect a TPK to occur or you'll be baffled way too often.

And, as you all know, as the players progress beyond tenth level in 3.5 the CR of a monster reveals absolutely nothing. It can be CR 17, facing off against four PCs on level 12, and most of the time they barely break a sweat. To me, this is something that hurts the game and it touches on something that makes me grind my gears when it comes to fiction; no threats, no suspense.
When I watch Indiana Jones with it's lighthearted tone, I don't mind that he can take on two truckloads of nazis on a tank. But in Lord of the Rings, where I'm supposed to fear for the inhabitants of Rohan as the orcs are barreling down on Helms Deep, all of that clashes with Legolas surfing on a shield against an entire regiment of orcs, or Aragorn and Gimli fighting hundreds of orcs on a ramp and living to tell the tale. All the suspense is gone, and if the tone is supposed to be light, I don't mind it but if it's supposed to be dark and serious, like some D&D settings try to be, it just feels silly. I think Kurt Wiegel said it best when he explained why he didn't like Ravenloft; "you can do all this amizingly powerful **** ... what are you scared of?"
So, when a game is not that deadly, I feel there's limits on how much engagement and suspense GMs can ask for.

What do you guys think? Does the added risk of dying make Dark Sun better or is it not something to worry too much about?

[Yora]

I think the key is that players are able to estimate the amount of danger they are facing and have to make the decision whether the rewards are worth the risk or the consequences of retreat are acceptable.

Of course, risk can only work if the players have a choice what to fight and which deathtraps to enter. If the game makes the decision foe them the game can only progress if there isn't any real risk.

[nrg89]

I think the key is that players are able to estimate the amount of danger they are facing and have to make the decision whether the rewards are worth the risk or the consequences of retreat are acceptable.

Of course, risk can only work if the players have a choice what to fight and which deathtraps to enter. If the game makes the decision foe them the game can only progress if there isn't any real risk.

I expect there to be some knowledge of the risk, but I feel suspense is in the unknown. Yes, a GM should not keep his cards too close to the chest because that's treating the players unfairly, if they have no idea what's happening it's as bad as not challenging them. Instead of holding their hand and protecting them from danger, you're holding their hand leading them off a cliff.

But I'm of the opinion that there has to be a lot of variance and a healthy 60/40 or 70/30 ratio of known variables and unknown variables. Wether or not the room actually contains enemies, it's a great feeling when the players are holding their weapons high, sweeping the room and breathes out once it's established it's all clear because what if there would've been a big monster there that could eat them alive?
If they enter, are surprised by a goblin that attacks them, they get a flesh wound and stabs the goblin to death with minimal effort the GM cannot expect them to react with fear to the next threat or to be careful. They'll kick in the door next time, because whatever's inside there's probably going to bite the dust.

[Knaight]

This sort of thing is extremely game dependent. There are games which work best when character mortality is extremely high*, there are games which work best when characters can only die when the players of said characters choose that they do (usually in lieu of some sort of other negative consequence.

*In Pendragon, everyone dies. Everyone. Dread comes pretty close.

[nrg89]

This sort of thing is extremely game dependent. There are games which work best when character mortality is extremely high*, there are games which work best when characters can only die when the players of said characters choose that they do (usually in lieu of some sort of other negative consequence.

I think I actually agree, and this is pretty much why I feel there is no such thing as a perfect system. Some systems can't do horror, the mechanics of the game removes the suspense completely and in no way is it the players' or the GM's fault, they can be 100% into horror and really work to get that suspense, but they're fighting an uphill battle for no good reason.

My opinion is basically that the risk of dying matters. The risk of dying will drastically change the tone of the game, and if you don't want a light hearted tone you can't run a system where the PCs are essentially immortal.

[JAL_1138]

AD&D 2e. First level wizard: 1d4 hp, rolled--no taking max automatically. Throw that plastic caltrop and pray. Max possible con bonus of 2, and Con bonus doesn't even start to kick in below 15 Con. Death occurs at 0 hit points unless you use an optional alternate rule. You get precisely one spell per day. No cantrips, unless you take the 1st-level spell called "cantrip."
Back in my day, we died like flies and we liked it, ya dagnabbed whippersnappers!

More seriously, I'm going to agree with everyone else and say it's game-dependent. Or at least campaign-dependent. Sometimes players want to be mighty heroes, and sometimes they want to prod the ground with a 10ft pole before every step they take.

Even in heroic games, though, I do think there needs to be at least some risk of, if not necessarily dying outright, then at least failing in some fashion. Succeeding at everything with no challenge and no risk gets boring quickly. How much risk is a question of the game being played, the campaign being played, and the immediate circumstances. Even in an everything-trying-to-kill-you meatgrinder of a survival-horror campaign, there are still some fights or other dangers that by all rights you should just sail on through at basically no risk. Just not very many compared to a more heroic, high-powered campain.

[Koo Rehtorb]

There are ways to threaten players that isn't PC death. Threatening things or people they care about, threatening their hard earned achievements, even threatening their inventories if they have something irreplaceable. A lot of the time I feel like threatening something other than PC death makes for a more suspenseful game.

Too much PC death can lead to games where it's like "Oh no, Belf died. Here comes his identical twin brother Melf."

[Vitruviansquid]

The risk of death is highly dependent on the tone of your campaign, and you can't go wrong if it's adjustable by the GM.

But to answer the spirit of the question, I think a mechanically good game could be made if the risk of failure (with consequences) is rather large, but the risk of actual death is rather small and chance-based. It is a fine thing in new RPGs for people to be able to get attached to their characters and have their characters develop over time as they play. It is also a fine thing for games to give a thrill of danger as old RPGs do. This is the best solution I can think of that preserves as much of the two as possible.

[Fri]

Here's one of the most important part to establish BEFORE you start a game.

Establish how deadly the game is. It is a game where you can stumble into a statue-that-disintegrate-on-touch anytime? A game where one bad roll can kill you? A game where bad tactic can kill you? A game where you'll say "are you sure about this?" before killing people?

Once it's established. Go nuts.

The thing is, everyone "default deadliness" of the game is different. When you think people should die with one bad roll, other people might think people only should die if it's appropriate to die. Except if you're playing with long time group, always establish the deadly level of the game first. EVEN when you're playing with long time group. This is as important as establishing the genre and the system.

I usually play in narrative game where you only die when it's appropriate. It's genre appropriate. But I also played in super deadly game, where a long running long favourite character got killed because bad luck. It's one of my favourite game as well. But it's been established first that it's a super deadly game where everything can kill you.

And yes, death isn't that interesting of a threat in a lot of system or premise. And in fact, in a character-grinding campaign, where character die left and right and new character got rolled all the time, it's not even a threat anymore.

[Cluedrew]

You know the risk of dying isn't directly tied to power level, strength of enemies can vary to. OK that is a nit-pick.

I think a much more important point was hit by JAL_1138. Failure=/=Death. You could call it a video game mentality, but board games do the thing where you win or you lose too. Most role-playing games don't have a win or lose condition. You can succeed or fail, but neither by itself will decide the outcome of the game, you can drive the story on either way.

Characters actually dying make this a little bit harder, but you can still do it. Characters merely failing can make the story more interesting. I think there should always be a decent chance of failure, death should generally occur much less often.

[SethoMarkus]

Too much PC death can lead to games where it's like "Oh no, Belf died. Here comes his identical twin brother Melf."

In response to this, I'd like to quote The Gamers:

Spoiler

Show

Some time after Ambrose the Mage has died.

The Gamemaster: Guys, please! I want you to roleplay this. Remember you've never met this guy before, the last guys you met tried to kill you, and you're standing in the ruins of an evil, cursed castle. Just act appropriately.
Magellan: Hello, I'm Magellan, a traveling mage. I notice your group has no wizard.
Rogar, the Barbarian: You seem trustworthy. Would you care to join us in our noble quest?
Magellan: Yes. Yes I would.
Magellan assumes Ambrose's former position in marching order.

[Darth Ultron]

What do you guys think? Does the added risk of dying make Dark Sun better or is it not something to worry too much about?

The added risk of character death makes the game much better. With no, or ''almost no'' death, the game is as silly as a cartoon and other kids stuff. There is lots of meanness ''action'', but nothing else.

In a no death type game, players don't even have to try...they know they will win. It makes for a very boring and dull game. Even when they encounter something intimidating or scary, they know nothing will happen.

It's even worse on the DM side when they do stuff like ''oh, the orc blade death masters put down their dark blades and...um...punch'' or ''D'ak the evil archwizard casts ray of frost''.

A game can not have ''too much death''.

And sure you can talk to the players about it, though I find that to be a bit pointless. Oddly the players will often expect the game reality to make their characters immortal, but will whine and complain if a door has two traps on it...

[Knaight]

There are ways to threaten players that isn't PC death. Threatening things or people they care about, threatening their hard earned achievements, even threatening their inventories if they have something irreplaceable. A lot of the time I feel like threatening something other than PC death makes for a more suspenseful game.

There are, and I'd even go so far as to argue that there are downright bleak games that can be run where the PCs being unable to die is part of what makes it so bleak. Just look at the Oz books, and how amazingly dark they get with that exact premise. That doesn't mean that there aren't styles dependent on high mortality.

[Max_Killjoy]

Here's one of the most important part to establish BEFORE you start a game.

Establish how deadly the game is. It is a game where you can stumble into a statue-that-disintegrate-on-touch anytime? A game where one bad roll can kill you? A game where bad tactic can kill you? A game where you'll say "are you sure about this?" before killing people?

Once it's established. Go nuts.

The thing is, everyone "default deadliness" of the game is different. When you think people should die with one bad roll, other people might think people only should die if it's appropriate to die. Except if you're playing with long time group, always establish the deadly level of the game first. EVEN when you're playing with long time group. This is as important as establishing the genre and the system.

I usually play in narrative game where you only die when it's appropriate. It's genre appropriate. But I also played in super deadly game, where a long running long favourite character got killed because bad luck. It's one of my favourite game as well. But it's been established first that it's a super deadly game where everything can kill you.

And yes, death isn't that interesting of a threat in a lot of system or premise. And in fact, in a character-grinding campaign, where character die left and right and new character got rolled all the time, it's not even a threat anymore.

While I generally don't care for "what makes the better story?" or "what makes for the more interesting narrative?" considerations as the primary concern... death is typically the least interesting complication that can arise from a character / gaming / emergent story perspective as well. Dead characters don't do interesting things (for the most part); they don't seek revenge or deal with loss of prestige or escaping captivity or being ransomed or swearing an oath in exchange for their life or... anything.


And I also agree that character death that's too easy becomes cheap, even comical, and prevents players from feeling any investment in their characters as "people" instead of just clumps of numbers and dice.

[icefractal]

Something to keep in mind is iterative probability. Let's say people have a 10% chance of dying in a given battle. Not that high, right? But if a journey involves thirty battles, there's only a 4% chance for someone to make it from the beginning to the end. Most likely, the party that finally reaches their goal will have zero members in common with the party that first set off seeking it. If they haven't buggered off in a whole different direction, that is - after all, once the original party dies, what's happening them on the quest at all?

Now if you're fine with that - great! Nothing wrong with running a sandbox where we follow the adventures of a changing cast, and where the plot arcs tend to be short and localized.

But if you wanted something character-driven, and/or with longer-term plots going on, then you need to consider the effect a high death-rate has on that.

[Tiktakkat]

Something to keep in mind is iterative probability. Let's say people have a 10% chance of dying in a given battle. Not that high, right? But if a journey involves thirty battles, there's only a 4% chance for someone to make it from the beginning to the end. Most likely, the party that finally reaches their goal will have zero members in common with the party that first set off seeking it. If they haven't buggered off in a whole different direction, that is - after all, once the original party dies, what's happening them on the quest at all?

Now if you're fine with that - great! Nothing wrong with running a sandbox where we follow the adventures of a changing cast, and where the plot arcs tend to be short and localized.

But if you wanted something character-driven, and/or with longer-term plots going on, then you need to consider the effect a high death-rate has on that.

Exactly.

Consider the base Paizo mentality and set-up:

A six-part AP.
As it starts, the PCs are expected to take background traits that tie them directly into the storyline.
One PC is expected to die in each installment.
Midway through the third installment, only one PC may have any connection to the story.
Midway through the fourth installment, zero PCs are likely to have any connection to the start of the story.
Yet they continue the quest because . . .

Yet the high death count and background trait concepts are both core elements of their game model.

[nrg89]

There are, and I'd even go so far as to argue that there are downright bleak games that can be run where the PCs being unable to die is part of what makes it so bleak. Just look at the Oz books, and how amazingly dark they get with that exact premise. That doesn't mean that there aren't styles dependent on high mortality.

Well, yes, but that's not because they can basically defeat any problem coming their way. In D&D you're just practically immortal because you kill whatever's coming your way first.

But, yes, there are fates far worse than death but introducing them makes for a very prolonged removal of agency (not to mention that really graphic violence is not for everyone, if you go down that route) or needs many scenes of roleplaying for the players to feel invested in the person/object/place/thing they'll lose. When the players have just rolled up some characters the latter one will probably not work.

"Now, hurry! They will kill your sister!"
"Sister? Oh yeah, right, Mary!"
"Wasn't it Margaret?"
"Hmmm, maybe you're right. Oh no, we must save Margaret, you guys. Woe is me."

[Cluedrew]

With no, or ''almost no'' death, the game is as silly as a cartoon and other kids stuff.

Actually I think for this purpose we can actually separate the "risk of death" and the "threat of death". It is a rather fine distinction but I'm going somewhere with this.

What I think you are talking about is removing the idea of failure from the game, so that players can do whatever and still be met with success. It is a problem that can happen, I see it a lot in stories where the main character continues to take the one in a million chance over and over again. Of course in stories there is no randomness so they outcome can be controlled perfectly.

To counter act this you don't actually need to increase the amount of death in a story, which when distributed over the opportunities to die becomes your risk of death. Instead you want to increase the threat of death (or more generically, consequences for bad ideas), so that people who do stupid things are met with the consequences of their stupid actions.

If there hasn't been a single death because the party has used negotiation to cut down the number of fights, run away when out classed and executed every battle they did fight with tactical brilliance, I will claim the game has not become a cartoon.

In conclusion, death can add to a game, but I think the threat of death/failure is more useful.

[flond]

The added risk of character death makes the game much better. With no, or ''almost no'' death, the game is as silly as a cartoon and other kids stuff. There is lots of meanness ''action'', but nothing else.

In a no death type game, players don't even have to try...they know they will win. It makes for a very boring and dull game. Even when they encounter something intimidating or scary, they know nothing will happen.

It's even worse on the DM side when they do stuff like ''oh, the orc blade death masters put down their dark blades and...um...punch'' or ''D'ak the evil archwizard casts ray of frost''.

A game can not have ''too much death''.

And sure you can talk to the players about it, though I find that to be a bit pointless. Oddly the players will often expect the game reality to make their characters immortal, but will whine and complain if a door has two traps on it...

Death is easy, failure is hard. If given the choice of "The PC will hold back the tide, bravely sacrificing themselves" or "The PC will flee and live, known forever as a worthless brigand who let the kingdom fall, mentioned forever as the villain." Many, many players will pick the first, even compete for the honor. And if you're in a game where the primary stakes are success or failure, you can get some heavy mileage out of failures that aren't death, yes even have death be explicitly on the table by focusing on actions and their consequences.

And this is even presuming that success vs failure is what we're doing. If we're playing an rpg like Fiasco, character death is often a moment of laughter. It has no tension, just "what's best for the story of failure and pain we've got going on here." (Likewise, for the traditionalist Paranoia has TONS of death, but it is so close to a cartoon the gadgets should be labeled ACME. )

[Darth Ultron]

In conclusion, death can add to a game, but I think the threat of death/failure is more useful.

The threat is meaningless if it is not backed up. To just giggle and say to the players that something is just so threatening is just pointless, they will just laugh along.

The other types are failure are nothing compared to death....that is why death stands alone. If the players fail to save the kingdom they will just shrug and be like ''oh well'', but have all the PCs die and, wow, will you see a much bigger reaction.

Death is easy, failure is hard.

Except as above most players don't care if they ''fail''.

If given the choice of "The PC will hold back the tide, bravely sacrificing themselves" or "The PC will flee and live, known forever as a worthless brigand who let the kingdom fall, mentioned forever as the villain." Many, many players will pick the first, even compete for the honor.

Except the modern player of ''campaigns'' does not care. Every game is a new reality of a campaign, so what happened before does not matter. Your way only works if it id one DM/one world campaign like the good old days.

[flond]

The threat is meaningless if it is not backed up. To just giggle and say to the players that something is just so threatening is just pointless, they will just laugh along.

The other types are failure are nothing compared to death....that is why death stands alone. If the players fail to save the kingdom they will just shrug and be like ''oh well'', but have all the PCs die and, wow, will you see a much bigger reaction.

That...runs very counter to my experiences. Replacing Sir Bob the Knight with Sir Glob the Knight has much less impact then some of the nonfatal losses I've encountered, or for that matter given.

Maybe your characters just aren't very invested in your world?

Because seriously, Death means one of three things:

1. They roll up a new but equivalent character. In this case they've lost some of the carefully built story of things...but well, if they don't care about it in other circumstances why would they care about it here.

2. They're out of the game. In which case well, they're out of the game. Disappointing but it's a one time thing.

3. They start with a beginning character. In which case it'll either smooth out to be 1 (as they catch up) or 2 (as they become a useless comedy pc).


If you hit them in the dignity though. That smarts. And it smarts even more if you rub it in later. If it has consequences. Not "Mechanical" consequences. But "You're now viewed as a fool" consequences. Frankly, death is easy to deal with, but the bigger failures...well those you may even want to be sparing in using. They might be too dangerous for some campaigns. :)

[Darth Ultron]

That...runs very counter to my experiences. Replacing Sir Bob the Knight with Sir Glob the Knight has much less impact then some of the nonfatal losses I've encountered, or for that matter given.

If you hit them in the dignity though. That smarts. And it smarts even more if you rub it in later. If it has consequences. Not "Mechanical" consequences. But "You're now viewed as a fool" consequences. Frankly, death is easy to deal with, but the bigger failures...well those you may even want to be sparing in using. They might be too dangerous for some campaigns. :)

A player looses a lot as character death is seen as bad by everyone.

In character they loose all the role playing history, items and other things ''character #1'' had.

It is even worse if the DM twists the dagger: PC's 1-4 met the king and he offered a bounty of 10,000 gold to each. PC 4 dies and in comes PC 4.1....except that PC never met with the king and does not get the reward!

[flond]

A player looses a lot as character death is seen as bad by everyone.

In character they loose all the role playing history, items and other things ''character #1'' had.

It is even worse if the DM twists the dagger: PC's 1-4 met the king and he offered a bounty of 10,000 gold to each. PC 4 dies and in comes PC 4.1....except that PC never met with the king and does not get the reward!

Now imagine "No one gets the bounty because you failed and are outlaws." :P

Also, sometimes it's great to have your character die. I've had moments where my PC surviving would have felt like a giant weight on the campaign. (And at least one where I wish they had died. Possibly two now!)

[Darth Ultron]

Now imagine "No one gets the bounty because you failed and are outlaws." :P

Also, sometimes it's great to have your character die. I've had moments where my PC surviving would have felt like a giant weight on the campaign. (And at least one where I wish they had died. Possibly two now!)

Right, and for the ten seconds after the game ends everyone is sort of sad. Then everyone starts the new campaign and hits the reset button, so all that silly old stuff does not matter.

Few players and DM's would ''punish'' the characters for something for very long. Chances are it would be one cheep knock and then nothing.

[Max_Killjoy]

I predict snide, derisive attempts to belittle any opinion that's not an exact mirror of his own, until everyone just stops responding in exasperation.

[Darth Ultron]

I predict snide, derisive attempts to belittle any opinion that's not an exact mirror of his own, until everyone just stops responding in exasperation.

Your mostly right, except the first part. Few people want to debate or discuss, they just want to post ''I'm right''.

[flond]

Right, and for the ten seconds after the game ends everyone is sort of sad. Then everyone starts the new campaign and hits the reset button, so all that silly old stuff does not matter.

Few players and DM's would ''punish'' the characters for something for very long. Chances are it would be one cheep knock and then nothing.

Or you know, the defining joke of a campaign. Or a big part of a character's arc.

Heck, it's always been a big deal for my players even in short games like PbtA campaigns.

So you know, different playerbases. (or maybe something about your campaign style inhibits investment)

[oxybe]

The cheaper the death, the cheaper the campaign.

I see no reason to get invested in the game world, the characters, the NPCs, the quests, etc... if death is cheap. There is no lasting impact from quick, successive death. No sense of having lost anything of value if PCs are cheap and easily replaced.

Why should I care if my character dies? Quest failure? Was I even attached to that quest giver or the reason for the quest in the first place? Doubtful. In a game where death is quick and cheap I likely would not even try to setup relations with NPCs, knowing that they wouldn't last or try to be invested in them.

It's just boring.

I want consequences for failure that have impact. Things that would cause my character to rethink how they look at things, or force them to make choices.

"Death" isn't really a choice for the most part. It's usually something outside of my character's control and once it hits it's largely final (barring stuff like high level D&D where Death can be reversed pretty easily by default assumptions)

You can't make me fear death in a TTRPG: I can always choose to reroll a new character or go "whelp, bored now" and leave the game. But as long as my character is alive and I feel like I have a chance to succeed my goals that means I also have things I can likely lose or fear losing. That's where things get interesting for me: Living with failure is a much more terrifying alternative then the "get out of (plot) jail free" that is death.

[Pugwampy]

I like to try new things and monsters and hit the players hard sometimes .
In return I always have easy access temple "Raise Dead" options as well as no consequences for coming back .

My cousin partakes in games where you die once and its back to making a new character while your still warm corpse is being robbed by fellow players . I think thats a horrible way to play .

[bulbaquil]

You can't make me fear death in a TTRPG: I can always choose to reroll a new character or go "whelp, bored now" and leave the game. But as long as my character is alive and I feel like I have a chance to succeed my goals that means I also have things I can likely lose or fear losing. That's where things get interesting for me: Living with failure is a much more terrifying alternative then the "get out of (plot) jail free" that is death.

Same here, basically.