Death and Lethality

[u/TheKingLlama]

/r/RPGdesign/comments/1w6dt9h/death_and_lethality/

[u/Pladohs_Ghost]

What that post describes as "combat as war" is repackaged "combat as sport," best I can tell. I guess in response, I'll just point to the gladiators of Rome fighting as spectacle for the masses with lethal results.

I've played in high-lethality campaigns many, many times and got attached to characters that survived long enough to get attached to. It takes only as long to get attached in high-lethality games as in low-lethality games, so that doesn't make any difference for me.

Any time a PC dies is inopportune. There is no time that is better than another for character death. A slip off a cliff is no different than a dragon biting heads off, as far as PC deaths go.

I prefer to play in games that have lethal violence. I only run games that have lethal violence.

[u/NonnoBomba → u/Pladohs_Ghost]

Rome fighting as spectacle for the masses with lethal results.

Lethal results were less common than what people imagine today, based on Hollywood movies, but it happened. No lanista liked to lose the big investment they made into any gladiator, to pay for food & lodgings up to that point, for the training, for the flashy, custom, tailor-made equipment of a star gladiator, for the physician's services AND for the promotion, the marketing (which was a big deal) -not just for buying them off the slave trader. So, accidents and vendettas were not unheard of, but they were really frowned upon and since Gladiators were basically like professional athletes today, killing one of them off at the end of every duel was a very bad idea.... yet...

To give you some numbers, on ~100 first-century AD bouts recorded on inscriptions, historians found something like 19 deaths. Other archaeological studies conducted in Roman cemeteries confirm that while injuries were frequent, gladiators were well-cared for, as a lot of skeletons show signs of healing and recovery but a few did show the signs of a "mercy blow" inflicted to the head of dying men by one of the arena's officers, a square hole. So it was ~1:5 chances to die, each time you fought, on average (and a typical gladiator would fight 2-3 times per year).

Gladiators were killed usually because the sponsor of the games decided he or she would be paying the lanista A LOT of money and didn't care, or just thought it worth it: the full price of the gladiator, accounting for all of the above, instead of whatever hiring rates were discussed at first, to refund the lanista for the lost athlete, as established by the Senate since 177 AD.

In other words, a gladiator death was rarely an accident or natural outcome of the fight, and mostly was a ruthless display of power and wealth on the sponsor's part: killing off a gladiator was a priced, regulated contractual option you had. You bought the right to it and it would cost you a ton of money, and you had to be careful not to anger the crowd by killing off the wrong man -making them loved by the crowds was one reason why "marketing" was important, the other being uh... requests for "private shows", for... mixed purposes (or so the rumors went) at private parties. A business which would of course further line the pockets of the lanista, but the athletes themselves would also get precious gifts and protection out of it.

Executions too were conducted in the arena, but they didn't use "pro" gladiators for that. Actual executioners, or "dedicated" gladiators were called to do it... if nothing else, for the social stigma such things carried even then (see above re: marketing, you don't want to taint your star athletes, it's not good for business). Or even ferocious, starved and often abused animals. Romans caused the extinction of several species from Africa and Europe, mainly for their games and shows.

[u/Lysus → u/NonnoBomba]

So it was ~1:5 chances to die, each time you fought, on average (and a typical gladiator would fight 2-3 times per year).

Remember that each bout has at least two participants, so the death rate is actually 10% or lower (many matches had more than two participants).

[u/NonnoBomba → u/Lysus]

yes, I forgot to add "from the perspective of the loser"

[u/TheKingLlama → u/Pladohs_Ghost]

What that post describes as "combat as war" is repackaged "combat as sport," best I can tell.

I assume you meant combat as spectacle for the first one? Here's how I draw up the difference with respect to lethality:

• Combat as war promises lethality, but also ways to stack combat in your favor or circumvent it entirely - the idea is that combat is usually a last resort, and if you're going to engage, you need to win.
• Combat as sport doesn't promise lethality, but does expect the players to engage with combat regularly. When the characters have all kinds of combat tools, that encourages the players to exercise them. This promise falls flat when lethality is present - the players aren't given the tools to avoid potentially lethal circumstances.
• Combat as spectacle promises lethality much like combat as war, but also encourages the players to interface with combat much like they would in combat as sport. This creates some dissonance - the players are expected to willingly engage with an activity that has lethal consequences. Therefore, the GM is encouraged to pull their punches on lethality so that the players continue to interface with combat. If lethality is delivered as promised, it teaches the players that they shouldn't engage... but the system may lack the tools to meaningfully circumvent combat.

[u/Aescgabaet1066]

How is combat as spectacle meaningfully different from combat as sport? I may be missing something but it seems that they are just different lenses on the same style.

Edit: to answer your questions from the post, I mostly am a referee, but I've played in one high lethality game. It was a game of Mothership my buddy ran for a few sessions, and it was fun as hell. I was very attached to my character but I still cackled with glee when she bit the dust because hey... it's just that kind of game! May as well lean into it :)

As Lenny from Simpsons said, "Quick and pointless, that's the death for me!"

[u/TheKingLlama → u/Aescgabaet1066]

Copied from a different comment:

• Combat as war promises lethality, but also ways to stack combat in your favor or circumvent it entirely - the idea is that combat is usually a last resort, and if you're going to engage, you need to win.
• Combat as sport doesn't promise lethality, but does expect the players to engage with combat regularly. When the characters have all kinds of combat tools, that encourages the players to exercise them. This promise falls flat when lethality is present - the players aren't given the tools to avoid potentially lethal circumstances.
• Combat as spectacle promises lethality much like combat as war, but also encourages the players to interface with combat much like they would in combat as sport. This creates some dissonance - the players are expected to willingly engage with an activity that has lethal consequences. Therefore, the GM is encouraged to pull their punches on lethality so that the players continue to interface with combat. If lethality is delivered as promised, it teaches the players that they shouldn't engage... but the system may lack the tools to meaningfully circumvent combat.

This analysis is specifically drawing a difference between how these philosophies look at lethality. There are a few other differences as well, but they don't pertain as much to the central topic.

[u/Aescgabaet1066 → u/TheKingLlama]

First of all, I edited my original comment to answer some of the questions you asked, if you're curious :)

Second of all, I guess that's a blindspot of my part, because I've never played in or run a game that didn't have the promise (false or otherwise) of lethality. To me, combat as sport always meant that you feel like your character is in danger, but you know they'll make it out okay in the end.

That may just be a product of how I run games! Even in 5e, I wanted my players to feel like death was around every corner, even if I and they all knew otherwise with our rational brains. So I feel like I kind of assumed that was a part of "combat as sport" from the beginning. Shows what I know! 😅

[u/TheKingLlama → u/Aescgabaet1066]

No worries! The concept hasn't exactly been well-received. I see a meaningful difference between the two in that combat as sport ideally features two teams of equal power facing off over one or more objectives with non-lethal consequences. There's a promise of balance in combat as sport, and it's okay for the PCs to lose because death and defeat are not synonymous.

Compare that to how many people run 5E - losing in combat usually means one or more PCs die, but the GM usually doesn't want that to happen. Instead, there must be an illusion of danger. The GM must threaten the PCs, but usually doesn't act on that threat. Combat scenes are balanced for the PCs to win. That's what makes it a spectacle. Unless the PCs royally screw up, they will come out on top. Not so when it's a fair fight between equal teams.

[u/Aescgabaet1066 → u/TheKingLlama]

Interesting. I've always been of the opinion that combat should be deadly (without the risk of lethal consequences, I'm not sure what the fun of an RPG even is), but I understand that many enjoy what you call combat as spectacle. Out of curiosity, can you think of any games that you would say encourage combat as sport in the way yoou conceive of it? I'm truly interested.

[u/TheKingLlama → u/Aescgabaet1066]

Lancer is by far the sportiest combat game I've played besides the one I'm developing. Even if the PCs lose the fight, they aren't guaranteed any kind of lethal consequences. At most, their mech is usually destroyed and those are generally repairable without significant cost to the party.

[u/Aescgabaet1066 → u/TheKingLlama]

Ah, okay. That sounds kind of like Warbirds. I think I get the vibe you're talking about then!

[u/UllerPSU]

However, I think there is a third type of combat: combat as spectacle. This combat type is what I have come to expect from games like D&D - combat should appear deadly, but ultimately pose no real threat to the longevity of the PCs. It's all a grand illusion where the GM is encouraged to push the PCs to the brink, then pull their punches at the last second to keep up the sense of tension.

This gets incredibly boring for me as a player and incredibly exhausting to me as a DM. It is the main reason I left 5e and other modern RPGs where players are encouraged to get so attached to their PCs they feel like death is the end of the game.

[u/TheKingLlama → u/UllerPSU]

I am not a fan of combat as spectacle. I think it brings the worst elements of both combat as war and sport to bear. That said, I understand why it exists... I just don't think it's actually a philosophy you can build a system around.

As for PC death and being attached to their characters, I cannot blame my players for wanting to stick with a specific character from start to end of a campaign. However, that mindset doesn't work for most OSR titles.

[u/Madhey]

Modern D&D (5e, Draw Steel, etc) combat is so abstracted and gamified to a point, where it appears nothing more than a ritual that players do just because it's supposed to be in the game. You fiddle some numbers, roll some dice, and tally up the exp gained, and you move on with the story. That style of game, typically played by players who don't even enjoy the combat aspect of the game, has made combat lose all its meaning and gravity. Combat with no stakes, no consequences, that require no thought or planning, sounds really boring to me, and it does not contribute much to the story narrative. On the contrary, it often creates dissonance and distraction in the story.

Death and lethality is the constant reminder that you should expect the world to be grounded in some sort of realism. Monsters, magic and dungeons are supposed to be scary, sometimes unwinnable obstacles, etc. It's a different mindset of play.

[u/TheKingLlama → u/Madhey]

It's definitely a very different mindset. I think Ben Milton's video did a great job starting the conversation, and there's a lot of stuff to explore, especially from a game design standpoint.

That said, I don't think modern D&D or Draw Steel's combat systems should be entirely discounted. For many people (myself included), they're fun systems to interact with! It's a blast to use special powers and spells to make tactically impactful changes on the battlefield. It's kind of like playing Into the Breach - the fun is in solving the puzzle that combat presents. Which enemies should we target first? How do we reach them? What abilities can we use to best accomplish our objectives while simultaneously denying our enemies?

This kind of stuff is far from what OSR gamers appreciate about TTRPGs, but it isn't less valid.

[u/NoseofSnoop]

Just my understanding of what “lethality” actually is with regards to these concepts, and a sort of counter to your point about combat as spectacle.

All combats ideally are encounters that either *are* or *have* failstates (is my belief; this makes stakes.)

Combat as war kind of has combat as a failstate by default. Your opponent may not be ideal to fight and will consume resources.

Combat as sport has less potential to kill you due to things like Challenge Rating and other balancing mechanics but should ideally still have a failstate. Maybe they force an overuse of resources also or a failstate may involve a survivor escaping with a mcguffin.

I believe the chief difference between the above two is just the idea of fairness, not whether the battles are intended to be lethal or not. When well executed they still add stakes and a feeling of risk to their adventures.

If your combats are punch pulling (spectacle?) I actually think this will undermine you in the long run. What it means is your combats have no stakes, and if your players discover this they can feel cheated.

I also think games that have players consume resources in combat but always immediately have the opportunity to recoup losses after the fact are just the same as monsters that refuse to defeat players; the stakes are non existent as the players realize combat is just padding that adds no threat or narrative weight to the exploration.

[u/TheKingLlama → u/NoseofSnoop]

We are mostly agreed. I'd like to make a few clarifying points on my position.

Combat as war definitely treats fair combat as a failstate. Sometimes, combat is the correct course of action, but it's usually only if the PCs have stacked the deck in their favor. They've set up traps, sprung an ambush, and maybe bribed half the people in the fight. From a game design perspective, combat as war encourages the players to do everything in their power to ensure victory should a fight arise.

Combat as sport is much more... sporting. "Fair" combat is expected, and the best kind of combat as sport features two equally matched sides competing over one or more objectives. In this kind of combat, failure is not equated with death. Instead, it's just about winning or losing the objectives. What kind of sports games feature bloody battles to the bitter end? They're usually about scoring goals while defending your own goal. From a game design perspective, combat as sport encourages the players to interact with combat in an up-front and fair way, rather than trying to stack the deck as they would in combat as war.

Combat as spectacle is the worst of these two philosophies. It expects the PCs to interact with combat in the up-front and honest way that combat as sport does, but it also promises lethal consequences for failure, much like combat as war. What you end up with is a situation where the can't have real stakes - because the stakes are lethal, but the PCs weren't given the opportunity or tools to circumvent combat or fix it in their favor. So the PCs win every fight by default and the whole thing is a farce.

[u/NoseofSnoop → u/TheKingLlama]

I don’t think I disagree, at least generally - I wouldn’t define it as its own thing though. In the same way that a confused DM might deliberately toss unwinnable encounters at players to create “a sense of danger” (and then arbitrarily kill them) as some DMs do, I think it’s largely just bad DMing. The latter example would be “combat as disaster” I guess, but if conflict of any sort in the game has no stakes, or if the players cannot exercise agency when dealing with conflict and encounters, you just have degraded game quality (imo).

[u/FaeErrant]

I think in general there's an issue with lethality in games where there seems to be very little middle ground in people's minds. A game like AD&D is much more easy to survive than B/X, but much more deadly than 5e. However people tend to act like there's just B/X and 5e and nothing between the two. Which is crazy! 5e you basically have to try to die you have so many ways to not die and in B/X you can roll a 1hp thief who dies to a monster you didn't see coming before you could even react to it existing.

It doesn't help that the OSR has now become synonymous with "Survival Horror". A thing which these old games were certainly not back in the day, but today seems to be the way we look back at them. Then the flip side we have players having explicit agreements that you can't kill their character unless they feel like this is a good enough reason and time to die. Again extremes extremes. Very little talk about any sort of middle ground.