Permadeath and risk tolerance

[Canuck]

Reading discussions about playing in permadeath mode, I see two claims:

1. You have to wait until [very high level] to do [difficult quest].

2. No, it's no problem doing [difficult quest] at [much lower level].

The difference is risk tolerance. Let's say you have a 95% chance of surviving [difficult quest] at [lower level]. If you do it just once or twice, you'll probably be fine. But if you plan to keep doing that, things don't look so good: your odds of surviving 10 encounters or quests where you have "only" a 5% chance of dying is just under 60%; after 13, it drops below 50%.

So unless you're unusually lucky, you'll probably lose a permadeath character some time in the teens (level-wise) if you have such a high risk tolerance (just like in real life, thrill-seekers rarely live to collect old-age security). You need to be very sure of surviving each encounter before taking it on.

I'm enjoying playing in permadeath mode, but it's a different game — slower paced, and the willingness to leave even a simple a quest or battle in the middle if it starts becoming too risky, instead of pushing through (like I would have with multiple saves).

I don't think I'll play it any other way from now on.

[Nut]

It looks like players either play normal or permadeath.
I think Unlimited lives, 1 save interesting too. You get more cautious, but an unlucky move is not final.

[rijackson741]

I have not played permadeath in AT, but I have played it an old rpg, Moria (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moria_(1983_video_game)). Basically, you are right. You have to reduce your chance of being killed to almost zero. I don't even recall how many attempts it took me to beat Moria, but it was a lot. I finally got there by just never venturing to the next level (the game makes you descend levels in a dungeon) until I was OP for the next level.