D&D 5e is right by me - I'm one of those players who think character's death is a Bad Thing and should only ever happen as a result of unique stupidity on party's part, or when there is a consent from both DM and player. I guess it's because I started from CRPGs where there is always save/load - I never ever play Ironman mode, and I never will. Then again, it depends on the kind of campaign you're running: if it's a simple dungeon crawl, then character's death isn't a big matter, because character are disposable dummies with barely any personality. But if I wasted hours thinking about this character and role-playing him? I certainly don't want to lose him to a bad roll or two.
Is it really true? I barely can find games I'd like to play. Sure, I prefer RPGs that are not QUITE mainstream (e.g. not JRPGs or action RPGs), but I feel I can buy a few more games per year than I'm already buying.
The real question is how big is that unmet demand, and how can you get to those people. The real problem is that we don't have a good algorithms for matching games to people. There are still quite a few unfilled or under-served niches, but it's hard to discover them, and if you make a game in one of them, it's hard to make people notice, because maybe they're not expecting anyone to make a game for them.
I'd like to point out the recently released Knight of Chalice II. It's an unique game. It's a turn-based CRPG with visuals even more simplistic than Spiderweb games and a story that's barely there. But it sure serves a niche - a niche of absolutely crazy build-porn-loving munchkins who need something to challenge their game-breaking builds. It's brutally hard even on normal difficulty, and even though I'm playing it, I feel like I'm not the primary audience, because I find it way, way too frustrating. It's Dark Souls of turn-based RPGs!
But that audience - it's there. In our own Pathfinder games, we see those people on Discord, min-maxing characters and seeking the way to defeat our optional bosses on Unfair difficulty (which even most of our game designers and QA find "a bit too much"). Are there any more games for them? Well... I guess Dungeon Rats. But it came out a few years ago, and really, the amount of build porno is much smaller there. Since then? Nothing. Once these people finish KotC2 a few times, I'm sure they would appreciate another such game, but who will make it? Nobody, most probably - for a few more years.
D&D preferences depend on a few things, but if we pretend that they have the same vibe/setting/etc which edition you prefer will mostly depend on how much boardgame you want in your RPG. Some p&pers are happy with combat being determined by the roll of one (or even zero) dice, others want combats resolved by a 2-hour game of minis.
I've seen player characters die in D&D 5e. I think you can kill them off in any system if you really want to - it all depends on how you set up and run the fights.
As for whether that's a good thing, I figure there are advantages and disadvantages, and it all depends on what you want. Frequent character death discourages investment in background and development - because why put a lot of work into a character who probably won't last? (Possible exception if you really love the character creation process, but I don't.) It can abruptly cut off interesting plot lines or relationships. And this one might be particular to me, but I find that it often takes a while before a new character really clicks and "turns into a person." If they typically died before that happened, I'd be missing a whole dimension of the game.
And lastly, in a game where death is uncommon, if a PC *does* die it's more meaningful. Because they were part of that campaign's identity and got both time and emotions invested in them.
You cited Game of Thrones, and I've heard from people who don't find GoT to their taste for basically these very reasons. Random, unfulfilling character deaths may be realistic, but they're not enjoyable to read about. The constant churn makes it hard to maintain sympathy and identification with who's on the page; if every character you liked has died, you might as well be reading a whole different book.
But I've also played high-fatality scenarios and had a good time. Again, it all really comes down to what flavor you want on a given day.
"I used to be 'with it' but know what I'm with isn't 'it' any more and what 'it' is is strange and confusing" - Abe Simpson
Totally with you on OD&D/AD&D... Maybe it's a little bit of rose colored glasses, but I do think I enjoyed those games a lot more than the 4e and 5e I've dabbled in lately. The legit fear of death adds a respectable spice to things, and lends more weight to epic sacrifices.
D&D 5e is right by me - I'm one of those players who think character's death is a Bad Thing and should only ever happen as a result of unique stupidity on party's part, or when there is a consent from both DM and player. I guess it's because I started from CRPGs where there is always save/load - I never ever play Ironman mode, and I never will. Then again, it depends on the kind of campaign you're running: if it's a simple dungeon crawl, then character's death isn't a big matter, because character are disposable dummies with barely any personality. But if I wasted hours thinking about this character and role-playing him? I certainly don't want to lose him to a bad roll or two.
Ok, ok I give in. I'm going to look into Elden Ring. I don't think I like rage inducing games though.
Inscryption is WONDERFUL.
Completely agree with you on everything you said about D&D and its editions. You almost literally cannot die in 5th Ed.
> but don't pretend there's unmet demand
Is it really true? I barely can find games I'd like to play. Sure, I prefer RPGs that are not QUITE mainstream (e.g. not JRPGs or action RPGs), but I feel I can buy a few more games per year than I'm already buying.
The real question is how big is that unmet demand, and how can you get to those people. The real problem is that we don't have a good algorithms for matching games to people. There are still quite a few unfilled or under-served niches, but it's hard to discover them, and if you make a game in one of them, it's hard to make people notice, because maybe they're not expecting anyone to make a game for them.
I'd like to point out the recently released Knight of Chalice II. It's an unique game. It's a turn-based CRPG with visuals even more simplistic than Spiderweb games and a story that's barely there. But it sure serves a niche - a niche of absolutely crazy build-porn-loving munchkins who need something to challenge their game-breaking builds. It's brutally hard even on normal difficulty, and even though I'm playing it, I feel like I'm not the primary audience, because I find it way, way too frustrating. It's Dark Souls of turn-based RPGs!
But that audience - it's there. In our own Pathfinder games, we see those people on Discord, min-maxing characters and seeking the way to defeat our optional bosses on Unfair difficulty (which even most of our game designers and QA find "a bit too much"). Are there any more games for them? Well... I guess Dungeon Rats. But it came out a few years ago, and really, the amount of build porno is much smaller there. Since then? Nothing. Once these people finish KotC2 a few times, I'm sure they would appreciate another such game, but who will make it? Nobody, most probably - for a few more years.
D&D preferences depend on a few things, but if we pretend that they have the same vibe/setting/etc which edition you prefer will mostly depend on how much boardgame you want in your RPG. Some p&pers are happy with combat being determined by the roll of one (or even zero) dice, others want combats resolved by a 2-hour game of minis.
I've seen player characters die in D&D 5e. I think you can kill them off in any system if you really want to - it all depends on how you set up and run the fights.
As for whether that's a good thing, I figure there are advantages and disadvantages, and it all depends on what you want. Frequent character death discourages investment in background and development - because why put a lot of work into a character who probably won't last? (Possible exception if you really love the character creation process, but I don't.) It can abruptly cut off interesting plot lines or relationships. And this one might be particular to me, but I find that it often takes a while before a new character really clicks and "turns into a person." If they typically died before that happened, I'd be missing a whole dimension of the game.
And lastly, in a game where death is uncommon, if a PC *does* die it's more meaningful. Because they were part of that campaign's identity and got both time and emotions invested in them.
You cited Game of Thrones, and I've heard from people who don't find GoT to their taste for basically these very reasons. Random, unfulfilling character deaths may be realistic, but they're not enjoyable to read about. The constant churn makes it hard to maintain sympathy and identification with who's on the page; if every character you liked has died, you might as well be reading a whole different book.
But I've also played high-fatality scenarios and had a good time. Again, it all really comes down to what flavor you want on a given day.
"I used to be 'with it' but know what I'm with isn't 'it' any more and what 'it' is is strange and confusing" - Abe Simpson
Totally with you on OD&D/AD&D... Maybe it's a little bit of rose colored glasses, but I do think I enjoyed those games a lot more than the 4e and 5e I've dabbled in lately. The legit fear of death adds a respectable spice to things, and lends more weight to epic sacrifices.