You're viewing a single thread.
I get the danger and the stress and signaling "this is barovia bitch" feeling pf the death house. But as a DM ? I hate killing players before they had a story and when they barely can't do anything about it. I probably couldnt run that module, Im not sadistic enough. I say "sorry" everytime my players get koed and I dont feel they were stupid enough to deserve it.
As time goes on, I find it harder and harder to have player death at all in my games. I adore 5e and don't really want to step away from it for a long time but my style is definitely about supporting my players in the strongest possible character arcs and anything deadly just obstructs this, especially if it hits multiple players. But equally it's clear that without the stake of death, the entire combat cycle of 5e which creates the stakes is broken.
Yeah, but a stake with the reputation of the death house doesnt sound really that interesting to use for any reason but sadistic thoughts IMO. Of course death is needed for suspense over danger. Doesnt need to be this fast thought.
Plus, low level doesnt only mean no story developped before dying. It also means less options and more dependant on luck. A single crit at level 1 can be enough to one shot a player. Thats why I hate starting at level 1. I prefer level 3, for options, survivability, and the fun of not being a near death one trick poney.
set up a campaign around it - let your party get wiped and reroll their PCs’ heirs/lovers/etc to play through a revenge tour.
Great ! Now not only have I killed new characters, I also have to do extra work and forget the first campaign alltogether.
How about I forget step 1 : run death house as it is, and step 2 : kill half my party with cheap traps and unfair fights, to go straight to step 3 : do something else.
You do you hombre