PDA

View Full Version : Nerf, Meat or Middle?



Gamer Girl
2011-05-12, 06:14 PM
So in another thread we started talking about the differences in style and philosophy between different games as:

Nerf Game--This game style philosophy is that the characters should never die or be subject to hardships. (Note this is Nerf as in to make out of foam so on one is hurt vs the traditional role-playing definition)

Meat-Grinder Game--This game style philosophy is that the characters can and will die and will be subject to hardships.

The Middle--Is between the two, of course.

Now, not counting games like call of Cthulhu(Meatgrinder) or Toon(Nerf) how do you do your game style philosophy?

And as everyone will no doubt say 'middle', I have questions:


1.Would you ever allow a character to die less then 15 minuets into a game session?
2.Do you feel that a character always must have a chance to escape even Certain Doom?
3.Would you let a character die for making a very obvious in game mistake while they are fully aware of what they are doing? (They make camp directly under a rocket, eat something poisonous, or wake up a hungry dragon)
4.Would you let a character die for making an in game mistake that they were not aware of? (They pick hallway #2 that floods with lava at a set time)
5.Would you ever let a random dice roll kill a character?
6.Would you allow a character to 'die for nothing'? (Such as a guard just getting a lucky shot)
7.would you ever not roll, or otherwise, not follow a game rule, to simply say what happens to keep a character alive?
8.Do you feel that players that come up with clever/good plans should not have to worry about their character dying during the plan? (They want to climb high, high up the wall to get to a lone window)
9.Do you think it's no fun for a character to die?
10.Do you ever change the game play to protect and save a wounded character from dying? (The bad guy tosses way his gun to just punch the wounded character or the wizard suddenly casts a low level spell)

Knaight
2011-05-12, 06:30 PM
Now, not counting games like call of Cthulhu(Meatgrinder) or Toon(Nerf) how do you do your game style philosophy?
Even Toon has set backs, and even Call of Cthlulhu has its small successes.



1.Would you ever allow a character to die less then 15 minuets into a game session?
2.Do you feel that a character always must have a chance to escape even Certain Doom?
3.Would you let a character die for making a very obvious in game mistake while they are fully aware of what they are doing? (They make camp directly under a rocket, eat something poisonous, or wake up a hungry dragon)
4.Would you let a character die for making an in game mistake that they were not aware of? (They pick hallway #2 that floods with lava at a set time)
5.Would you ever let a random dice roll kill a character?
6.Would you allow a character to 'die for nothing'? (Such as a guard just getting a lucky shot)
7.would you ever not roll, or otherwise, not follow a game rule, to simply say what happens to keep a character alive?
8.Do you feel that players that come up with clever/good plans should not have to worry about their character dying during the plan? (They want to climb high, high up the wall to get to a lone window)
9.Do you think it's no fun for a character to die?
10.Do you ever change the game play to protect and save a wounded character from dying? (The bad guy tosses way his gun to just punch the wounded character or the wizard suddenly casts a low level spell)

1) Yes, though I favor mechanics that include meta game currencies that give players ways to avoid that.
2) There is always a chance, but there is also a time past that chance, and the time lapse can vary.
3) Certainly, though I will point out that this course of action is really dumb and give the player a chance to change it.
4) As long as the reason is logical repercussions of prior actions, yes. Something like "a rock slide is going to happen" no, and either way there is usually a way out, though the first case does bring up the time variance in point 2.
5) Yes, though stuff like this is why I include metagame currencies, and favor systems where killing someone due to one roll is very, very difficult.
6) Combat in my games is pretty much always important, but yes. I point again to metagame currency.
7) Nope. Nor would I ignore game rules to kill a character.
8) If the plan involves risk, then there is risk. That said, I favor systems where there are no rolls if the chance of failure is infitesimal, and in your example either a skilled climber or a guy with a rope and hook has nothing to worry about, unless there are complications.
9) Character death can be fun, but the risk of it is much better than it actually happening.
10) No, however surrender and retreat is the norm for everyone, and most opponents won't fight to the death.

Jude_H
2011-05-12, 06:46 PM
Completely depends on game.
D&D or All Flesh Must be Eaten? Meatgrinder.
Spirit of the Century or Dogs in the Vineyard? Nerf.
7th Sea or Mutants & Masterminds? Middle.

Generally, dying is great, as long as it's fun. That means there has to be something to make it fun - some silly 'gotcha' where the D&D Halfling realizes that the cave she's in is actually a giant's mouth or a tactical element where death is just a one of the stakes. If a game is all about telling an ongoing story with recurring character themes, I'm probably going to coddle the players little bit. If a game just makes fights really excruciatingly hard to finish, like SotC, I'm not going to drag it out until a character dies.

Generally, if something falls into the Middle, I'm not going to kill a character in the first 15 minutes. Mostly because I absolutely hate bogging a session down with character creation. If characters put themselves in danger, I'll make the game dangerous. Even if the plan that got them there was a good one.

I can be swayed by story arcs. If we have a compelling story arc going about a bounty hunter dealing with some family crises of the past, I'm probably going to cheat the roll to break his neck when he falls off his horse at a river crossing. Unless I think it could be played to make the plot more interesting.

I don't think it's always fun for a character to die, but I can't really sympathize with people who are upset by it. Unless it's like d20 where they just spent two hours building a character instead of playing and ten minutes in, they have to stop having fun for another couple hours to reroll a new character. (I usually migrate to lighter/meatgrindier games for pretty much that reason.)

One exception is subbing in as DM in a sandbox game. I used to do this a lot, and I'd be uncomfortable killing a character when it didn't seem like my place to make that call.

Sillycomic
2011-05-12, 06:49 PM
I would say I'm more Nerf than Meat. I will let characters die, but not due to random encounter X on the way to Mount Doom. Character death will need to mean something, unless it's the big boss fight, in which case anything goes.

1.Would you ever allow a character to die less then 15 minuets into a game session?
Never.
2.Do you feel that a character always must have a chance to escape even Certain Doom?
Nope, but I would certainly have lots of signs up saying, "Certain doom this way, stop now or you'll probably die." If they don't heed all of those signs, then they deserve what they get.

3.Would you let a character die for making a very obvious in game mistake while they are fully aware of what they are doing? (They make camp directly under a rocket, eat something poisonous, or wake up a hungry dragon)
If they know what they're doing, then they know what they're doing. I shouldn't stop them.

4.Would you let a character die for making an in game mistake that they were not aware of? (They pick hallway #2 that floods with lava at a set time)
I don't think so, unless the reason they're not aware of something is simply lack of trying on their part. If an old man had information about Hallway number 2 and they cut him off just to run down that hallway, then they are gonna die.

5.Would you ever let a random dice roll kill a character?
I don't think so. I mean, anything to kill a character is a dice roll, and a dice being rolled is always random... but I would never tell a character, "roll a d4, if it comes up 4 you are dead! Ha ha ha"

6.Would you allow a character to 'die for nothing'? (Such as a guard just getting a lucky shot)
Nope. Again... unless they purposely did something stupid that put them in this situation where they are now surrounded by guards.

7.would you ever not roll, or otherwise, not follow a game rule, to simply say what happens to keep a character alive?
Oh yes, I've done this a couple of times.

8.Do you feel that players that come up with clever/good plans should not have to worry about their character dying during the plan? (They want to climb high, high up the wall to get to a lone window)
No, good plans fail, and bad guys are allowed good plans as well. Coming up with a clever plan will get you further than usual while using less resources.

9.Do you think it's no fun for a character to die?
Character death can be fun.


10.Do you ever change the game play to protect and save a wounded character from dying? (The bad guy tosses way his gun to just punch the wounded character or the wizard suddenly casts a low level spell)
I have, but not usually. Bad guys will do what they need to in order to win the encounter. This usually means going after the more healthy party members and leaving the wounded and dying alone... which is rather convenient since the wounded and dying need to be left alone in order to NOT DIE

dsmiles
2011-05-12, 06:54 PM
So in another thread we started talking about the differences in style and philosophy between different games as:

Nerf Game--This game style philosophy is that the characters should never die or be subject to hardships. (Note this is Nerf as in to make out of foam so on one is hurt vs the traditional role-playing definition)

Meat-Grinder Game--This game style philosophy is that the characters can and will die and will be subject to hardships.

The Middle--Is between the two, of course.

Now, not counting games like call of Cthulhu(Meatgrinder) or Toon(Nerf) how do you do your game style philosophy?Depends. I probably sit on the Nerf side of the Middle as a DM. I like drama and suspense. If a character death isn't meaningless, then I let it happen (as a DM). If a character dies facing Orc #5 (long story), that's not cool with me. I have a hard time separating the characters from the story.

As a player, I tend to drift a little more towards the Meatgrinder end of the spectrum. I can separate myself from my characters pretty well, so if my character dies, so what? I've always got bunches of concepts floating around in my head, and can write up a character (complete with backstory) in less than an hour.
And as everyone will no doubt say 'middle', I have questions:


1.Would you ever allow a character to die less then 15 minuets into a game session?It's happened. I don't like it, but it's happened.
2.Do you feel that a character always must have a chance to escape even Certain Doom?Yes. I always script a way out of everything. The players may not find it, but there is always a way out.
3.Would you let a character die for making a very obvious in game mistake while they are fully aware of what they are doing? (They make camp directly under a rocket, eat something poisonous, or wake up a hungry dragon)Yes. Absolutely. They were aware that they were performing said action. They are also aware that for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction.
4.Would you let a character die for making an in game mistake that they were not aware of? (They pick hallway #2 that floods with lava at a set time)Again, absolutely. That's the nature of the game. There are risks involved with everything. Of course, I would script a way for them to find out that said hallway is trapped, but, again, they may not find it.
5.Would you ever let a random dice roll kill a character?Random die roll? Yes, as long as it advances the story the players are telling.
6.Would you allow a character to 'die for nothing'? (Such as a guard just getting a lucky shot)No. I have my limits, and dying for nothing is not fun.
7.would you ever not roll, or otherwise, not follow a game rule, to simply say what happens to keep a character alive?That's kind of an extreme example. I've ignored things like a couple of sneak attack dice, or forgot to factor in a bonus or two. I don't think I've ever ignored a rule or not rolled.
8.Do you feel that players that come up with clever/good plans should not have to worry about their character dying during the plan? (They want to climb high, high up the wall to get to a lone window)No, all plans have risks. Characters can die during awesome plans. Poop happens.
9.Do you think it's no fun for a character to die?Depends on the situation. Again, random encounter? Yes, unfun. Fight scene that's important to the story? No, not unfun.
10.Do you ever change the game play to protect and save a wounded character from dying? (The bad guy tosses way his gun to just punch the wounded character or the wizard suddenly casts a low level spell)No, not unless I suddenly see some advantage in it for the bad guy. Sometimes captured characters make great plot hooks for the next group of characters.

[/$0.02]

Knaight
2011-05-12, 07:08 PM
Yes. I always script a way out of everything.

Its also worth noting that even when you don't do this, clever players can find a way. To use a personal example, in a game I was playing the player characters walked into a bit of an ambush, in a space opera setting. Someone threw a very fancy magnetic grenade at one of them, and due to the physiology of the characters (robots, a lot of the game concerned the interaction between robotic sentience, religion, humanity, ethics, etc.) I thought said robot had no way to get it off (it was a 4 part grenade, which surrounded the robot in a pyramid bond with each part magnetically attached. The last way out I had thought of was "dodge", and that hadn't happened. "Retract all weapons, and quickly send them out right as the grenades are going to blow to throw them off and have them blow up before they come back" had never occurred to me, but it occurred to the player, and of course it worked.

dsmiles
2011-05-12, 07:17 PM
Its also worth noting that even when you don't do this, clever players can find a way. Couldn't agree more. When you're planning for a group of 4 players, plan for 20 answers for each situation. Then plan for 100 more.

Talakeal
2011-05-12, 07:22 PM
I usually try and run things by the book. Although I am usually tempted to pull my punches or fudge dice, I normally try and play the bad guys to the best of my ability.

However, I do not actually kill players unless there is a very good dramatic reason for it or they have some means of ressurection available. If someone would normally die I simply tell them they are injured so severly they will be out of action until they can get to a hospital / temple.

Jallorn
2011-05-12, 07:25 PM
1.Would you ever allow a character to die less then 15 minuets into a game session?
2.Do you feel that a character always must have a chance to escape even Certain Doom?
3.Would you let a character die for making a very obvious in game mistake while they are fully aware of what they are doing? (They make camp directly under a rocket, eat something poisonous, or wake up a hungry dragon)
4.Would you let a character die for making an in game mistake that they were not aware of? (They pick hallway #2 that floods with lava at a set time)
5.Would you ever let a random dice roll kill a character?
6.Would you allow a character to 'die for nothing'? (Such as a guard just getting a lucky shot)
7.would you ever not roll, or otherwise, not follow a game rule, to simply say what happens to keep a character alive?
8.Do you feel that players that come up with clever/good plans should not have to worry about their character dying during the plan? (They want to climb high, high up the wall to get to a lone window)
9.Do you think it's no fun for a character to die?
10.Do you ever change the game play to protect and save a wounded character from dying? (The bad guy tosses way his gun to just punch the wounded character or the wizard suddenly casts a low level spell)
1. Only if it was because of something really stupid, or if it was really heroic.
2. When possible, I try to give them a way out, but if, because of things they did, they don't have a chance... I'll probably still leave one, it'll just be hard to notice.
3. Yes.
4. Yes and no, I'd give them a short warning that would allow them the chance to avoid the hazard. Unless it's a trap that wouldn't normally kill them, but only does so because they are weak, then I let it go.
5. Yes.
6. Yes.
7. Yes, but not often.
8. No, if it's really a good plan, then they should be prepared for the risks.
9. Not always. Sometimes it can be a defining moment for the party as a whole, and sometimes it can just add to the realism of the game. However, deaths should not happen on a regular basis.
10. Maybe, but not too often.

Jjeinn-tae
2011-05-12, 07:27 PM
Personally I generally am firmly in the middle DMing-wise, depending on the dynamic of the campaign though it can drift in either direction.

I generally DM for the narrative, but I'm starting to appreciate the random death occasionally has helping the narrative. A hero, regardless of skill, gets off their game occasionally; When an enemy has the luck to be on theirs at this time, death happens. No matter how heroic they are, they can lose, and that inspires others to let them live on in their future deeds, or to resurrect at the soonest possible opportunity.

Though, there are two things going on where I'll be trying "Meatgrinder" soon. One, I'm running the original Wizardry in D&D, which if you're not familiar with it, you die... a lot... and then you die even more while you're still dead.

That, and I plan on running an AFMBE campaign sometime here, just got the rule set and it looks fun. :smallamused:

Hiro Protagonest
2011-05-12, 07:27 PM
I'm pretty sure middle's what I DM. The dice will fall as they will, but I use the hero point system, from the Pathfinder Advanced Player's Guide, which has a way to cheat death by spending two hero points.

dsmiles
2011-05-12, 07:28 PM
However, I do not actually kill players unless there is a very good dramatic reason for it or they have some means of ressurection available. If someone would normally die I simply tell them they are injured so severly they will be out of action until they can get to a hospital / temple.That's one point that wasn't addressed. Resurrection and True Resurrection. I dislike them (I do, however, enjoy Reincarnate). Which is one reason I like Iron Kingdoms so much. Raise Dead is the most powerful raising spell available, and it has drawbacks, and is a level 9 spell.

Marillion
2011-05-12, 07:34 PM
1.Would you ever allow a character to die less then 15 minuets into a game session?
Can't say I would, even in a setting where death is cheap. Just seems pointless, and not in a good way.

2.Do you feel that a character always must have a chance to escape even Certain Doom?
I may not always script a way out, but even in the face of Certain Doom, if they come up with something that could work, it...well...could work.

3.Would you let a character die for making a very obvious in game mistake while they are fully aware of what they are doing? (They make camp directly under a rocket, eat something poisonous, or wake up a hungry dragon)
Depending on the circumstances, they may wish they had died :smallamused:

4.Would you let a character die for making an in game mistake that they were not aware of? (They pick hallway #2 that floods with lava at a set time)
Not without giving them a chance to avoid it in the first place.

5.Would you ever let a random dice roll kill a character?
Generally speaking, no, but the pointlessness of their death may be dramatic in and of itself.

6.Would you allow a character to 'die for nothing'? (Such as a guard just getting a lucky shot)
See 5.

7.would you ever not roll, or otherwise, not follow a game rule, to simply say what happens to keep a character alive?
In special circumstances.

8.Do you feel that players that come up with clever/good plans should not have to worry about their character dying during the plan? (They want to climb high, high up the wall to get to a lone window)
Sure, they could die, but if the plan is clever and well-executed, chances are they won't.

9.Do you think it's no fun for a character to die?
Depends heavily on the circumstances; sometimes, a characters death can add greatly to the story.

10.Do you ever change the game play to protect and save a wounded character from dying? (The bad guy tosses way his gun to just punch the wounded character or the wizard suddenly casts a low level spell)
Within reason; if someone is disabled but not dead, I'd probably have the enemy target the remaining characters. Things like that.
[/QUOTE]

valadil
2011-05-12, 07:40 PM
I don't run heavy combat games. When I do a combat I want it to be tough, but they don't happen every session. I think the infrequency disqualifies me from running a meat grinder.

1.Would you ever allow a character to die less then 15 minuets into a game session?

Yes, but it's not likely that we'd get to combat that quickly.

If I did kill a PC in this way, I'd try to come up with some other entertainment for him. I might ask the player to run some enemies from the combat for instance.

2.Do you feel that a character always must have a chance to escape even Certain Doom?

I try not to write certain doom into the game. But I also don't write solutions to all my problems. Sometimes I throw obstacles at the party, assuming that they're more clever and resourceful than me.

If you're going to throw certain doom at the players and then save them with deus ex machina, why use certain doom in the first place? Your players will have more fun facing probable doom than hearing you describe not really so certain after all doom.

3.Would you let a character die for making a very obvious in game mistake while they are fully aware of what they are doing? (They make camp directly under a rocket, eat something poisonous, or wake up a hungry dragon)

Yes.

4.Would you let a character die for making an in game mistake that they were not aware of? (They pick hallway #2 that floods with lava at a set time)

Depends on my mood and on the group. The group I'm with now would be okay with it. Other groups would revolt. I'd be more likely to drop a clue so this becomes the previous question.

5.Would you ever let a random dice roll kill a character?

Yes. If D&D let me win on a 1 while my opponent lost on a 20 there would be no point in playing.

6.Would you allow a character to 'die for nothing'? (Such as a guard just getting a lucky shot)

Depends on the game. In previous games I've saved players from that fate. My current game is untouched by fudge. At the moment I prefer fudgeless, but that preference wavers.

The way I write games doesn't lend itself to death for nothing. I like combats to be deliberate. Wandering monsters just don't do it for me. When a fight happens, either you should know the name of the person you're killing or the person killing you should know your name. Or both. In such a game, there's no option to die for nothing.

7.would you ever not roll, or otherwise, not follow a game rule, to simply say what happens to keep a character alive?

That's farther than I'd go to save a character. I think I'd be more likely to give them one more death check than the system thought they should have.

If there were plot reasons though, I'd absolutely go with those over the rule. If the players are taken hostage after being knocked out in a fight, I'd just go with that instead.

8.Do you feel that players that come up with clever/good plans should not have to worry about their character dying during the plan? (They want to climb high, high up the wall to get to a lone window)

I usually give the character a bonus to succeed at something cool or clever. They can still screw up during these plans though. It's all a matter of risk assessment. If they decide that walking a tightrope is less risky than fighting the guards below the tightrope, then they accept that risk. I don't want to ignore the risk. But I do want to encourage them to think of solutions I didn't plan, which is why I give out the creativity bonus.

9.Do you think it's no fun for a character to die?

I think it's no fun for a player to sit out. Death is fine though and it makes combats feel real. One of my GMs asks how many HP you have whenever he hits you. If a shot would kill you, it invariably comes out one HP short instead. Now I'm bored in his fights. Two of the other players and I have been powergaming this by ignoring our defenses entirely.

10.Do you ever change the game play to protect and save a wounded character from dying? (The bad guy tosses way his gun to just punch the wounded character or the wizard suddenly casts a low level spell)

I won't use deliberately bad tactics. Akin to the GM above, another GM used to throw dragons at low level parties, but distribute his full attacks. As soon as I saw a dragon hit each player once when it could have slain a player with a full attack, I lost interest in the fight.

I don't fudge anymore. When I did I was more likely to forget a buff than make a suboptimal decision. Or the reinforcements wouldn't show up. Or something else the players wouldn't see without looking at my notes.

Lonely Tylenol
2011-05-12, 07:52 PM
I would say I'm more meat grinder than nerf. I'm writing a campaign on my own, and I'm currently having a group test play one of my missions, which is supposed to be the end of "Act I", and so more combat-oriented than my style usually dictates. The mission is designed for a 10th-level party with 5-6 members (scale up the level for smaller parties). In it, they have fought, or can expect to fight (spoilers give away the "easy" options):

-A level 12 Battle Herald with a Leadership level of 25... And the entire army that Leadership grants a character with a Leadership level of 25, which includes a level 10 cohort, plus 2 level 6, 2 level 5, 4 level 4, 7 level 3, 13 level 2, and 135 level 1 minions--a total army size of 165--together. To scale the difficulty back, I broke the army into six equal sections, which come one or two at a time (they fought one-third of the army in "wave 1", one sixth in "wave 2", a third--from all four sides--in "wave 3" and the last sixth in "wave 4"), which come at each other 1d4+1 rounds after the previous initiated combat (to simulate the effects of a spread-out front line converging on their point, or relocating for more complex strategies). The party of six which was testing this had four melee characters in it. It took them two sessions to complete that fight. It was the "warm-up".
The best solution to this encounter? Talking to the leader before the fight--you can convince her to join your cause. I'm not telling how--that spoils the plot.
-Upon entering through the front gates of the keep, the first mini-boss sneaks up on the rear-most player and hits them with flurry of blows.
-A trap within a trap (trapception?). Disabling one magical trap triggers the other, which activates a Delayed Blast Fireball that fires down their narrow hallway unless they can flee through the massive steel door and close it behind them in two rounds (Perception to notice it, Strength to force the door open and closed).
There is a way around this trap--a hidden passageway activated by pulling a lever disguised as a torch (cliche, I know, but few inconspicuous levers exist for a plainclothes dungeon hallway).
-The moment they enter the room, five archers on balconies fire flaming arrows at the party members in the surprise round. This may, or may not, interfere with them closing the door in time to prevent the fireball from the hallway from incinerating them.
The secret passageway leads up to their balconies, where they lose the height and range advantages; otherwise, they have to flee into the next room amidst a hail of arrows or try to overcome the obvious disadvantage.
-An Elder Earth Elemental, backed by the three wizards that conjured it.
Here, the best option is to wait--if the party waits, the Elder Earth Elemental attempts to kill the wizards after being fully conjured, since they are too weak to contain its power. The party can ambush them during the fight or clean up the remainder.
-An eidolon Summoner with a full life-link.
The AC of the eidolon is 38, but the caster has 11! You just need to fight through 350+ HP and their combined spells to get them down.
-The boss fight is pretty straightforward, but after the boss is slain, the real BBEG appears, complete with fear aura and nauseating fog, and casts an Empowered Detonate (acid) before disappearing with the body.
If you convinced the Battle Herald to join you, she will be dying during this time, as happens during the lead-in fight; if you don't save her, the Detonate will kill her completely! She's kind of important later on, if you manage to keep her around.

When I started writing the level 1 encounters (building the story around the established plot line), I discovered that I gave the PCs three different ways to kill themselves before ever engaging in a real encounter. (Granted, they're all "death by Chaotic Stupid", but still.)

My campaign style is, things are going to be very difficult unless you have a wide variety of skills at your employ (meaning an all-Fighter party is pretty much screwed), or you find the "easy" solution to everything (and there's always an "easy" solution). Usually, the "easy" solution involves using a wide variety of skills, so only a well-rounded party which thinks intuitively will get very far with me.

Aidan305
2011-05-12, 08:11 PM
1.Would you ever allow a character to die less then 15 minuets into a game session?
In to a game session? Yes. In to a campaign? No. It's unfair for a player to die to random chance before they've even had a chance to start playing their character.

2.Do you feel that a character always must have a chance to escape even Certain Doom?
Nope. Certain doom is just that. Certain. But if a player gets in to the certain doom situation in my games it's generally their own fault.

3.Would you let a character die for making a very obvious in game mistake while they are fully aware of what they are doing? (They make camp directly under a rocket, eat something poisonous, or wake up a hungry dragon)
I have done. There's a particular player in my group who has a tendency to switch off his brain in games. Most notable death was when he played a lantern archon wandering round a pitch-dark rust dragon's lair while shouting at the top of his voice to the rest of the party who were 500ft up avertical shaft at the time.

4.Would you let a character die for making an in game mistake that they were not aware of? (They pick hallway #2 that floods with lava at a set time)
In general, no. I try to avoid that sort of situation.

5.Would you ever let a random dice roll kill a character?Yes. Though generally the people who can do such things will be major antagonists so it's a suitable circumstance.

6.Would you allow a character to 'die for nothing'? (Such as a guard just getting a lucky shot)
It's not something that I like doing, since I prefer more heroic, narrative driven games. But sometimes these things happen.

7.would you ever not roll, or otherwise, not follow a game rule, to simply say what happens to keep a character alive?
I've done it a couple of times when that thought the circumstances were particularly unfair to the player.

8.Do you feel that players that come up with clever/good plans should not have to worry about their character dying during the plan? (They want to climb high, high up the wall to get to a lone window)
If I plan has a significant flaw, you can be sure it'll come up at least once in my games. If it's fairly negligable though (such as the rogue carrying out the climbing having a good climb skill) I'll let it by.

9.Do you think it's no fun for a character to die?
I think that a character death, done properly, can be immensely fun for everyone. Even the player losing the character.

10.Do you ever change the game play to protect and save a wounded character from dying? (The bad guy tosses way his gun to just punch the wounded character or the wizard suddenly casts a low level spell)
No. If a character is wounded then it's up to the rest of the party to help him.

rayne_dragon
2011-05-12, 08:44 PM
So in another thread we started talking about the differences in style and philosophy between different games as:

Nerf Game--This game style philosophy is that the characters should never die or be subject to hardships. (Note this is Nerf as in to make out of foam so on one is hurt vs the traditional role-playing definition)

Meat-Grinder Game--This game style philosophy is that the characters can and will die and will be subject to hardships.

The Middle--Is between the two, of course.

Now, not counting games like call of Cthulhu(Meatgrinder) or Toon(Nerf) how do you do your game style philosophy?


I think I tend to start games off as more of a nerf game (I try not to put the characters in situations where they might loose at first) then gradually move it more towards meat-grinder where the characters may encounter things that are too powerful for them to fight and they're more likely to encounter challenging foes who won't hesitate to kill them (rather than try to capture them) and who fight with more effective strategies. Overall I do run a game where it's more important to me that the NPCs act "realistically" - such as unintelligent animals fleeing when injured, but not hesitating to kill (and eat) the people they attack (not that unintelliget animals do a lot of attacking of PCs). I also think it's important that characters face the consequences of their actions. If they decide to attack the non-hostile level 30 cleric, then they deserve whatever consequences come of it. I would probably let them survive the encounter, but it would have consequences, and make things harder for them throughout the rest of the campaign.

I have no problem running a game as a meatgrinder (or playing in such a game) as long as it's made clear from the beginning.



And as everyone will no doubt say 'middle', I have questions:


1.Would you ever allow a character to die less then 15 minuets into a game session?
2.Do you feel that a character always must have a chance to escape even Certain Doom?
3.Would you let a character die for making a very obvious in game mistake while they are fully aware of what they are doing? (They make camp directly under a rocket, eat something poisonous, or wake up a hungry dragon)
4.Would you let a character die for making an in game mistake that they were not aware of? (They pick hallway #2 that floods with lava at a set time)
5.Would you ever let a random dice roll kill a character?
6.Would you allow a character to 'die for nothing'? (Such as a guard just getting a lucky shot)
7.would you ever not roll, or otherwise, not follow a game rule, to simply say what happens to keep a character alive?
8.Do you feel that players that come up with clever/good plans should not have to worry about their character dying during the plan? (They want to climb high, high up the wall to get to a lone window)
9.Do you think it's no fun for a character to die?
10.Do you ever change the game play to protect and save a wounded character from dying? (The bad guy tosses way his gun to just punch the wounded character or the wizard suddenly casts a low level spell)

1. Yes.
2. Definitely. Maybe they decide to attack the God of Death and they have no real chance of winning, but I'd at least let them play it out until they actually die. Besides, maybe they can find an amusing way to talk themselves out of it.
3. If it is blatantly obvious, certainly. Although they'd get to play out the fight or at least roll a fort save (or something similar) for the mushrooms.
4. Probably, but I would most likely give them some sort of way to get out of such a situation. In the case of the tunnel filling wth lava there would be some sort of warning before it starts to flood with lava and some kind of way out (although that might be hidden).
5. In a dramatic enough situation, although most combats qualify in my opinion.
6. Depends on if the character did something stupid that caused the situation in the first place.
7. Yes, but I would usually substitue other consequences.
8. I believe in rewarding clever plans, but not in removing all risk from them. If there is a risk inherant to the plan than the characters have to face that risk. Hopefully it's worth the effort, but if it isn't, the players only have themselves to blame for coming up with a lame plan.
9. Death can be fun. And conversely, there's nothing fun about surviving if there's no risk. Paranoia is a great example of a game where dying is fun (partly because fun is mandatory :smallwink:) and surviving is extremely rewarding because it's so hard. Even then, dying with style is more fun than living.
10. I have in the past and would again if I felt that I had designed an encounter incorrectly. I consider having to do this bad GMing on my part. If I felt the encounter was designed correctly, then I wouldn't do it.

Kobold Esq
2011-05-12, 08:48 PM
Note that my answers are based on assuming the game is DnD 3.5. The answers may change wildly for other games, one direction or the other.


1.Would you ever allow a character to die less then 15 minuets into a game session?

It has happened before, but not intentionally. Usually because a player made an atrociously terrible decision, or some very bad luck. (At level 1, a single crit with a x3 weapon will ruin many a d6 HD character's day)

2.Do you feel that a character always must have a chance to escape even Certain Doom?

If the GM planned for the certain doom to be part of the plot, yes. If it is the fault of the player for picking a fight with the certain doom, then no.

3.Would you let a character die for making a very obvious in game mistake while they are fully aware of what they are doing? (They make camp directly under a rocket, eat something poisonous, or wake up a hungry dragon)

Absolutely.

4.Would you let a character die for making an in game mistake that they were not aware of? (They pick hallway #2 that floods with lava at a set time)

This is the kind of thing that I would, as a GM, give the players some way of figuring it out before it happened, or escaping after it has. Otherwise you're just arbitrarily killing characters.

5.Would you ever let a random dice roll kill a character?

Yes. Most games I play feature raise dead or resurrection.

6.Would you allow a character to 'die for nothing'? (Such as a guard just getting a lucky shot)

Yes.

7.would you ever not roll, or otherwise, not follow a game rule, to simply say what happens to keep a character alive?

Generally no.

8.Do you feel that players that come up with clever/good plans should not have to worry about their character dying during the plan? (They want to climb high, high up the wall to get to a lone window)

If the plan entails risk of death, it isn't a clever/good plan, now is it? :smalltongue:

9.Do you think it's no fun for a character to die?

This cannot be adequately answered yes or no. Different deaths feel different.

10.Do you ever change the game play to protect and save a wounded character from dying? (The bad guy tosses way his gun to just punch the wounded character or the wizard suddenly casts a low level spell)

Rarely.

Incanur
2011-05-12, 08:54 PM
Depends on my players, but I tend more toward nerf than meat.

oxybe
2011-05-12, 08:58 PM
So in another thread we started talking about the differences in style and philosophy between different games as:

Nerf Game--This game style philosophy is that the characters should never die or be subject to hardships. (Note this is Nerf as in to make out of foam so on one is hurt vs the traditional role-playing definition)

Meat-Grinder Game--This game style philosophy is that the characters can and will die and will be subject to hardships.

The Middle--Is between the two, of course.

Now, not counting games like call of Cthulhu(Meatgrinder) or Toon(Nerf) how do you do your game style philosophy?

And as everyone will no doubt say 'middle', I have questions:


1.Would you ever allow a character to die less then 15 minuets into a game session?
2.Do you feel that a character always must have a chance to escape even Certain Doom?
3.Would you let a character die for making a very obvious in game mistake while they are fully aware of what they are doing? (They make camp directly under a rocket, eat something poisonous, or wake up a hungry dragon)
4.Would you let a character die for making an in game mistake that they were not aware of? (They pick hallway #2 that floods with lava at a set time)
5.Would you ever let a random dice roll kill a character?
6.Would you allow a character to 'die for nothing'? (Such as a guard just getting a lucky shot)
7.would you ever not roll, or otherwise, not follow a game rule, to simply say what happens to keep a character alive?
8.Do you feel that players that come up with clever/good plans should not have to worry about their character dying during the plan? (They want to climb high, high up the wall to get to a lone window)
9.Do you think it's no fun for a character to die?
10.Do you ever change the game play to protect and save a wounded character from dying? (The bad guy tosses way his gun to just punch the wounded character or the wizard suddenly casts a low level spell)

1 - never. everyone at the table is here to actually play the game. we've already done character generation & backgrounds in our pre-campaign session. last thing i want to do is turn the first session into a "so who's this guy and why do we have any reason to trust our life to him" after we've already covered that material

2 - pretty much yes. unless the players have dug themselves into a very obvious grave, i generally give them an exit of sorts. i try to run a more story-focused game when i do run and having a rotating cast of characters makes it difficult. even if you do focus the story around the party rather then the specific characters, when your villains have a hard time remembering who they're swearing revenge towards, you have a problem :smallwink:

3 - see above. if you punt an ogre in the stones, expect the blunt end of a club. i see no reason to add extra punishment to players past what they tend to do to themselves.

if they setup camp under a rocket, they'll take whatever damage the fire from the launch will do. if they anger the dragon, they'll have to deal with an angry dragon.

i might give players an out, but i still follow actions with applicable consequences.

4 - well, seeing as how i don't put those types of "gotcha" traps in my games this point is null. now, if we're playing a wild west game and the players have rigged a mineshaft with explosives, i will take note and mention this to them if they go running about inside it later that session as part of the "common sense" i expect most PCs to have.

5 - no. seeing as how i don't run any edition but 4th ed, there are VERY little save or die type effects. as i said above generally give characters an "out" of sorts.

should a character try to jump a hole (we'll say it nearly bottomless for the sake of the argument) that he, historically, has been able to jump no problem and happen to fail because he rolls a 1, i'll probably let him go for a sort of "hail mary": dig his fingers into the cliffside and make his way up, grab onto a branch/ledge or find some way to lessen the damage.

he'll still have to take the time to climb up again, or fly if he has access to it... and should your quest have a time limit, this can REALLY hurt.

6 - again, i GM 4th ed where it's VERY unlikely for a guard to kill a PC in one shot, even with a crit. i generally only run fights that are plot-important, so mook guards are effectively just that: mooks the PCs can steamroll through roleplay rather then waste time rolling dice.

once the captain & his personal squad or the noble's elite mercs show up however...

7 - unless i have a REALLY good plot-related reason, no. i try to focus the events around the party rather then specific characters, so even if one dies, the game can still go on.

but, should the stars align and absolute right sequence of events happen then yes, i would. but again, this would require one REALLY important reason.

as in: a deity owes the PC a favor and jumps in to save the PC (though knowing some deities the reason the PC is in trouble might due to that god not wanting to owe a favor).

8 - if a plan is reasonable and they take the proper security, with the only penalty of failing "well, we try again" then i see no reason why not. if it's highly unlikely to succeed or failure can actually have dire results, then no.

i tend to follow this rule when it comes to rolling dice: "does a chance of failure add something to the game or not?" when the PCs declare they are doing an action, will rolling the outcome actually add to the story, or just slow it down? is there a chance of failure where "bad stuff happens" or are the precautions the PCs taking enough to warrant a "it takes a while, but you all manage to do do [whatever]"

9 - random dice roll deaths, yes. this is one reason i'm not too keen on high level 3.5... it effectively becomes a guessing game where "is my save high enough/do i have the right protection from [effect/whatnot] on?" where the one day you forget to tell the GM you buff yourself VS death effects, you get bombarded with Finger of Death spells.

i've yet to see any of those type of stuff actually add to a game. it's not suspenseful in any meaningful way, you don't see it coming so it doesn't raise any tension. it's a simple "surprise! roll a die, high you live, low you die!"

it's honestly one of the most boring mechanics i've ever seen.

random mook deaths, yes i hate seeing these. i generally GM in a game where the PCs are the heroes of the story and it focuses on them. having a PC die to random goblin #23452-253 is anti-climactic. you don't see Indiana Jones die to some nazi mook. you don't see Luke die to some random stormtrooper.

i pretty much solved this by making the only fights i show the ones that matter to the narrative. PCs can mow down stormtroopers as they barrel down the corridors, but once the sith and his elite minions steps up, then the gloves come off.

hazards are just hazards, there to get in the way, drain resources, but rarely kill. if i do include them with intention to kill PCs, they're probably going to be in an area with an important enemy.

either way, TL;DR i want PC deaths to have some meaning to the narrative rather then the PCs simply being a series of numbers to be forgotten at a later date

10 - heh. like i said earlier i might give players an out, but i still follow actions with applicable consequences. Unless there is a VERY good, in-narrative reason to keep a PC alive, then i will, otherwise... well, you just pissed off a dragon.

here's the ketchup.

kyoryu
2011-05-12, 10:06 PM
I love hamburgers.

Shpadoinkle
2011-05-12, 10:27 PM
In a nerf style game... I find it hard to feel a real sense of urgency. On the other hand, in a meatgrinder game, why bother getting attached to your character at all when he's likely to get killed in two sessions or so? So, I've always preferred something in the middle.

1.Would you ever allow a character to die less then 15 minuets into a game session?
Yes... provided they do something stupid enough. Kicking the sleeping ancient red dragon in the butt while you're level 3 WILL get you killed, I don't care how long you've been playing the character or how attached you are to him.

2.Do you feel that a character always must have a chance to escape even Certain Doom?
Yes. Unless, again, they walk stupidly into certain doom despite the warning signs.

3.Would you let a character die for making a very obvious in game mistake while they are fully aware of what they are doing? (They make camp directly under a rocket, eat something poisonous, or wake up a hungry dragon)
Addressed above, but to reiterate, yes.

4.Would you let a character die for making an in game mistake that they were not aware of? (They pick hallway #2 that floods with lava at a set time)
Would I LET a character die? Probably. Would I MAKE the character die? No. I think PCs should have an honest chance to escape a trap, even if that chance is tiny.

5.Would you ever let a random dice roll kill a character?
Yes. I might pull the punch a bit if the player has gone through a lot of characters recently due to bad luck, though.

6.Would you allow a character to 'die for nothing'? (Such as a guard just getting a lucky shot)
More or less the same question as above, so, same answer.

7.would you ever not roll, or otherwise, not follow a game rule, to simply say what happens to keep a character alive?
Yes, in certain circumstances, as I've already mentioned.

8.Do you feel that players that come up with clever/good plans should not have to worry about their character dying during the plan? (They want to climb high, high up the wall to get to a lone window)
If it's THAT good a plan, then the risk of ding should be minimal. But I'm not going to pull punches JUST because the players came up with a plan- they're mucking up the plans of the bad guys all the time, I consider it fair for the bad guys to muck up theirs.

9.Do you think it's no fun for a character to die?
Some deaths can be fun. Facing down a horde of enemy soldiers while you guard a chokepoint to give your allies time to escape? I've done that before and was honestly prepared for my character to die (though he didn't.) Dying due to my own stupidity isn't fun, but eh... that's just the nature of the game. Dying because the DM just wants my character dead? No. That's BS and I won't play in a group where that happens.

10.Do you ever change the game play to protect and save a wounded character from dying? (The bad guy tosses way his gun to just punch the wounded character or the wizard suddenly casts a low level spell)
Eh... nothing that blatant, but I have, in a couple instances, weakened the monsters the party was facing because I'd miscalculated how effective they were (either the PCS or the monsters) and it looked like it was leading to a TPK.

AslanCross
2011-05-12, 10:29 PM
1.Would you ever allow a character to die less then 15 minuets into a game session?
If the dice roll that way, yes, but I'd be more willing to extend mercy if it was not due to excessive stupidity.



2.Do you feel that a character always must have a chance to escape even Certain Doom?

Nope.



3.Would you let a character die for making a very obvious in game mistake while they are fully aware of what they are doing? (They make camp directly under a rocket, eat something poisonous, or wake up a hungry dragon)
Yes, definitely. See 1.



4.Would you let a character die for making an in game mistake that they were not aware of? (They pick hallway #2 that floods with lava at a set time)
Yes.



5.Would you ever let a random dice roll kill a character?
Yes.



6.Would you allow a character to 'die for nothing'? (Such as a guard just getting a lucky shot)
If you mean an anticlimactic death---ideally not. This is why I avoid running Lv 1 games.



7.would you ever not roll, or otherwise, not follow a game rule, to simply say what happens to keep a character alive?
I've done this before. If it's really difficult to replace the character within the context of the death, I'd do this. When I intend to go "no mercy, characters that die here really die," I let my players know.



8.Do you feel that players that come up with clever/good plans should not have to worry about their character dying during the plan? (They want to climb high, high up the wall to get to a lone window)
High risk, high reward. Clever plans might get them better results, but they should also have an appropriately increased risk.



9.Do you think it's no fun for a character to die?
It's only "no fun" if the death accomplishes nothing. See #6. We've had some pretty awesome deaths/blazes of glory.



10.Do you ever change the game play to protect and save a wounded character from dying? (The bad guy tosses way his gun to just punch the wounded character or the wizard suddenly casts a low level spell)
Occasionally. Not-so-intelligent NPCs might think a PC at -9 dead and leave him or her alone. The same behavior can't be expected of raging creatures (who might not stop attacking until the enemy is a gooey paste) or intelligent enemies who don't want to take chances.

Yora
2011-05-13, 02:50 AM
1.Would you ever allow a character to die less then 15 minuets into a game session?
If the player rushes to his characters doom in the first 15 minutes, sure.

2.Do you feel that a character always must have a chance to escape even Certain Doom?
If he knew he's facing certain doom, no.

3.Would you let a character die for making a very obvious in game mistake while they are fully aware of what they are doing? (They make camp directly under a rocket, eat something poisonous, or wake up a hungry dragon)
Yes.

4.Would you let a character die for making an in game mistake that they were not aware of? (They pick hallway #2 that floods with lava at a set time)
No.

5.Would you ever let a random dice roll kill a character?
No.

6.Would you allow a character to 'die for nothing'? (Such as a guard just getting a lucky shot)
Depends. See "Certain Doom" above.

7.would you ever not roll, or otherwise, not follow a game rule, to simply say what happens to keep a character alive?
Yes.

8.Do you feel that players that come up with clever/good plans should not have to worry about their character dying during the plan? (They want to climb high, high up the wall to get to a lone window)
No. If they gamble, it's a gamble.

9.Do you think it's no fun for a character to die?
Usually it isn't.

10.Do you ever change the game play to protect and save a wounded character from dying? (The bad guy tosses way his gun to just punch the wounded character or the wizard suddenly casts a low level spell)
Yes.

Telasi
2011-05-13, 03:26 AM
I run a meat grinder game, by the standards you have set forth. My answers to the questions you posted:


1.Would you ever allow a character to die less then 15 minuets into a game session?
Yes. Happened last session, actually.

2.Do you feel that a character always must have a chance to escape even Certain Doom?
No.

3.Would you let a character die for making a very obvious in game mistake while they are fully aware of what they are doing? (They make camp directly under a rocket, eat something poisonous, or wake up a hungry dragon)
Yes. If they screw up that badly, they kinda deserve it.

4.Would you let a character die for making an in game mistake that they were not aware of? (They pick hallway #2 that floods with lava at a set time)
I generally avoid the situation. On occasion, though, yes.

5.Would you ever let a random dice roll kill a character?
Save or dies are basically this, so yes.

6.Would you allow a character to 'die for nothing'? (Such as a guard just getting a lucky shot)
Yes, combat is lethal, no matter who you're fighting.

7.would you ever not roll, or otherwise, not follow a game rule, to simply say what happens to keep a character alive?
Yes, I would. I mostly do it when a mistake of my own causes the death in question, however.

8.Do you feel that players that come up with clever/good plans should not have to worry about their character dying during the plan? (They want to climb high, high up the wall to get to a lone window)
No.

9.Do you think it's no fun for a character to die?
Depends on the death. I've had great deaths, and terribly anti-climactic ones.

10.Do you ever change the game play to protect and save a wounded character from dying? (The bad guy tosses way his gun to just punch the wounded character or the wizard suddenly casts a low level spell)
Only if the NPC in question would, or I made a serious misjudgement in encounter level.

Ravens_cry
2011-05-13, 03:47 AM
I hate meat grinders, I find them pointless and only fun in one shots, convention games, or at most, short term campaigns, as there is little point in building up an interesting, fleshed out character if some unlucky roll of the dice is just going to take them away from you, or worse, an outright sadistic game master.
Yet at the same time, the opposite does not mean a complete lack of hardship for the characters. On the contrary, a well run role playing focused session can hit you for far more then just hit points, can take away more then just ability scores and levels, and leave you reeling in ways no status effect ever could.
That is not to say I don't like combat, combat is a visceral and engaging part of many role playing games. And if you are going to have combat, there should be risks.
So yeah, somewhere in the middle, but I don't think your questionare is really well designed.

Werekat
2011-05-13, 04:54 AM
Another someone who prefers the middle, though probably leaning into nerf (I'm more interested in how to make an interesting, complete story while in life, as one writer said, "our stories end mostly in middles") in that I try not to kill characters intentionally by selecting appropriate challenges. But I still believe in characters making meaningful mistakes, so I try to make their actions count for when they can die and when they live. For your statistics, this is what I try to keep with:

1.Would you ever allow a character to die less then 15 minuets into a game session?

As someone said above - game session, yes, campaign - no. All depends on the story. EDIT: probably because I don't usually play with people who act stupid enough to die immediately.

2.Do you feel that a character always must have a chance to escape even Certain Doom?

Depends on how certain the doom really is. If it's a plot device - sure, that's what the characters are there for. If it's something they brought upon themselves - have at them!

But any DM decision towards what is really certain is pretty difficult for me to make, especially when its PC VS. organization. For instance, a party of mages versus the Technocracy - are the Labs impenetrable strongholds? Where are the security holes? What is the amount of resources that can be assigned to fighting the PCs? This is where I tend to lean into nerf, explaining some of what the foes can and can't do by their laziness and\or stupidity. This approach has gotten me mixed results: sometimes the players wanted scarier and more intelligent enemies, sometimes they liked the realism.

3.Would you let a character die for making a very obvious in game mistake while they are fully aware of what they are doing? (They make camp directly under a rocket, eat something poisonous, or wake up a hungry dragon)

Yeees, pleease. And I have killed characters over that. But the best one of its kind was with my own character - but she was a vampire, she got turned back into a human through her own stupidity (do NOT touch something labeled "water of life" with your bare hands). While being all wound up in the vampire hierarchy still. Honestly - worse than death, and a lot more fun. And "more interesting than death" is something I like going for.

4.Would you let a character die for making an in game mistake that they were not aware of? (They pick hallway #2 that floods with lava at a set time)

Try to give hints like "the hallway has no sharp corners. The stones are all smooth." If they don't take the hint - whoops.

5.Would you ever let a random dice roll kill a character?

Of course. Getting into combat in D&D is nerfed enough by heal and ressurection, and getting into combat in, say, WoD should not be something undertaken lightly.

I try not to give insta-kill effects, though, that the characters have no chance of knowing about. Spot checks are great - and if someone goes off on their own, well, theirs is the risk.

6.Would you allow a character to 'die for nothing'? (Such as a guard just getting a lucky shot)

See 5 above.

7.would you ever not roll, or otherwise, not follow a game rule, to simply say what happens to keep a character alive?

I've never done such a thing, and probably will not.

8.Do you feel that players that come up with clever/good plans should not have to worry about their character dying during the plan? (They want to climb high, high up the wall to get to a lone window)

No, they should! That's part of coming up with a truly brilliant plan, is it not?

9.Do you think it's no fun for a character to die?

Verily depends on the death. I've had senseless deaths, deaths in the absence of me at the scene of the game (LARP), and those were no fun. In-game death is interesting, though.

10.Do you ever change the game play to protect and save a wounded character from dying? (The bad guy tosses way his gun to just punch the wounded character or the wizard suddenly casts a low level spell)

I did this unintentionally once. I had a fight with a masterless golem, the remaining intelligence of which was breaking down steadily as the party damaged it. I overestimated the party, a member died, and they were getting trounced in general. The fight was slow, and we had to end the session in mid-combat - just when it was starting to behave irrationally. But the party was very much geared up for an interesting tactical fight, and when the golem started breaking down right after the beginning of the second session, my players were horribly disappointed. I explained that was the plan beforehand, but they still asked me not to do that anymore, and I probably won't without making it at least seem cool and threatening.

SillySymphonies
2011-05-13, 05:12 AM
1.Would you ever allow a character to die less then 15 minuets into a game session?
Yes, but only if the player makes an obviously stupid tactical decision bordering on the suicidal (charging into melee at level 5 with a 12 hp caster, for example) OR if the session starts with a climactic boss battle.
However I would allow the player to play a NPC/monster that has been tagging along, so the player has something to do for the rest of the session.

3.Would you let a character die for making a very obvious in game mistake while they are fully aware of what they are doing? (They make camp directly under a rocket, eat something poisonous, or wake up a hungry dragon)
Depends on why the player did this: IMO rule of fun > rule of cool > 'realism'.
If the player is fully conscious about making his/her character do something stupid, just to get a quick laugh from the other players, I'd let him/her get away with it (except of course in games like Call of Cthulhu).

4.Would you let a character die for making an in game mistake that they were not aware of? (They pick hallway #2 that floods with lava at a set time)
Events in a campaign should depend on the PCs' decisions, NOT on the DM's story or randomness!

5.Would you ever let a random dice roll kill a character?
One random die roll when the players aren't expecting anything? ("Roll for Fort." "Natural 1. :(" "You die.") No.
A random die roll at the end of a climactic boss battle when the PC was already quite worn down? Sure.

6.Would you allow a character to 'die for nothing'? (Such as a guard just getting a lucky shot)
Die for nothing? The player obviously pissed off the guard, right? How would a guard kill a PC with a lucky shot anyway? Assuming D&D3.5, guards are low-level warriors armed with (light) crossbows: with a 'lucky shot' (critical) a guard would do max 2x8 = 16 damage.

7.would you ever not roll, or otherwise, not follow a game rule, to simply say what happens to keep a character alive?
Yes, but only for newbie players or when as a DM I made a mistake in estimating the difficulty/lethality of an encounter.

8.Do you feel that players that come up with clever/good plans should not have to worry about their character dying during the plan? (They want to climb high, high up the wall to get to a lone window)
A clever/good plan would take into account the characters' strengths and weaknesses - thus they would only climb high if there was a character with a high proficiency in climbing.

9.Do you think it's no fun for a character to die?
Usually not (unless in a climactic boss battle), but knowing the DM protects you except during boss fights makes the game even less fun. Just make character death have memorable consequences: a jedi-themed PC in my regular gaming group came back as a 'Force ghost' after character death.

jseah
2011-05-13, 05:13 AM
I generally run things with an eye to versimilitude.
So mostly likely on the meatgrinder end of the spectrum. Although it can seem like a nerf game if the characters lay well thought-out plans and manage risk well.
My games, when I run them, run by plans and risk management. All characters and players are required to think and assess the situation.
I don't decide if a plan will work arbitrarily but let it play out by the rules and if it turns out to be flawless then so be it. I do not arbitrarily make things harder if they were too easy. Nor in reverse.


1. Yes, but I don't put characters in situations that are lethal within 15 mins...
Unless they were being dumb, but I hate dumb characters anyway so it's all right. =)

If a player runs headlong into a no-win situation 15 minutes into a game, they probably shouldn't be playing with me as DM.

2. I don't script in certain doom situations.
The players *never* start from a position from which they could get into a certain doom situation unless deliberately doing so.

If they did deliberately do it, then they were being dumb and I kill them.

If they didn't bother to collect the requisite information (the amount of which is proportional to power, so certain doom situations are always findable), then they were being dumb and I kill them.

3. Yes, they were being dumb.

4. Yes.
Not being aware = did not do the research.
Players are expected to examine their assumptions and find out if they *really* know what they think they do. Walking down the hallway because the mind-controlled guard with an amulet of fire immunity said it was safe is just asking for it.

5. Yes. If your plan was not flawless and you tried it anyway, you accept the risk.
If your plan was merely good, the risk is miniscule but still there. This differentiates the superb plan from the merely competent.

6. Yes, see 5. In fact, I don't usually have a "big boss" who is good at combat. Most of my villian NPCs will die to a well-trained military man in a fight.

7. Only if it would absolutely ruin the game (ie. player will walk out), otherwise no.
EDIT: and if I do, the game shifts instantly towards Nerf difficulty. I let my players know that they're playing on 'easy mode' now since they couldn't handle 'normal'

8. If the plan has risk, then it wasn't so clever right? =P
Remember that I allow players, with some level of excessive precaution, to 'overkill' a situation and pull off a flawless plan. If your plan was really flawless, and all the NPCs' struggles are futile, then you simply just win.

9. All part of the game. It's not fun, but it's there for versimilitude.
PCs are not special. If NPCs can die, so can PCs.

10. No.
In fact, NPCs will capitalize on weakness and seek to demolish any opposition as quickly as possible. There are no dramatic hostage situations (unless needed for a bigger plan), no 'death is too good for you'; if a character is captured or defeated and the NPCs would be better if the character is dead, then the character dies. (I will even roll for this if the player wants to, but rulesets I pick generally don't allow characters to survive this kind of situation)
Mortal enemies will shoot to kill immediately and do it from ambush whenever possible.

------------------------------------------------------------

Despite the harshness of this, characters don't actually die all that often in my games.
Most likely it's my players, since they know my style and play cautiously, gathering information, planting misinformation and being generally not-suicidally-dumb about things.

Excessive amounts of "playing the hero" and "hot blooded manliness" (as one of my players puts it) is a surefire way to get killed messily very very fast.
Especially since I prefer campaigns without a clear good side.

OverdrivePrime
2011-05-13, 06:37 AM
I'm somewhere in the middle.
My players know that I will avoid putting them in situations where they don't have a chance, or give them an in-game signal that a choice they are making could lead to the Bad End. That said, they also know that most of us have been slinging dice together for at least fifteen years, and if they make a dangerous choice, are warned and they persist in the action, plot armor will not save them. I'm very patient with new players and will hand out advice and suggestions that makes sense for the character to help keep them out of trouble.

My players trust me to have my NPCs act in a way that is consistent with their character. A lawful evil BBEG will likely take you prisoner, torture and interrogate you, possibly attempt to sway you to their side though various means, or possibly publicly execute you after a sham of a trial. A chaotic evil BBEG will likely just kill you immediately and throw your body to their followers. Dragons will eat you, unless there is a profitable reason to do otherwise. My players know that I have a major problem with sexual violence, and any instance of it will be stopped or heavily punished in game.

Firechanter
2011-05-13, 07:05 AM
As I said in the other thread, as a player I want my actions to be of consequence, for better or worse. I also try to DM in a similar vein:



1.Would you ever allow a character to die less then 15 minuets into a game session?
2.Do you feel that a character always must have a chance to escape even Certain Doom?
3.Would you let a character die for making a very obvious in game mistake while they are fully aware of what they are doing? (They make camp directly under a rocket, eat something poisonous, or wake up a hungry dragon)
4.Would you let a character die for making an in game mistake that they were not aware of? (They pick hallway #2 that floods with lava at a set time)
5.Would you ever let a random dice roll kill a character?
6.Would you allow a character to 'die for nothing'? (Such as a guard just getting a lucky shot)
7.would you ever not roll, or otherwise, not follow a game rule, to simply say what happens to keep a character alive?
8.Do you feel that players that come up with clever/good plans should not have to worry about their character dying during the plan? (They want to climb high, high up the wall to get to a lone window)
9.Do you think it's no fun for a character to die?
10.Do you ever change the game play to protect and save a wounded character from dying? (The bad guy tosses way his gun to just punch the wounded character or the wizard suddenly casts a low level spell)

1. That depends on the scope of the player's actions. I am certainly not quick to kill a PC but if, say a player announces their character jumps off a cliff into a pool of molten lava, well...

2. Again, that depends what the players did in the first place to get confronted with certain doom. I would never _force_ them into a challenge they have no chance of overcoming, but if a lowlevel party knowingly walks into the lair of an adult dragon...

3. See 1 and 2: those are exactly the situations in which PC deaths are most likely to occur.

4. This, however, is exactly the kind of mortal danger I seek to avoid. Here we have to discriminate between "had no way of knowing" and "did not bother to find out". Random unavoidable deathtraps are a complete no-no. Poor research is another matter, but here I generally offer a way out.

5. I try to make sure that random dice can't permakill a character. Modern systems have built-in failsafes to avoid exactly that. Such as Fate Points, Bennies, whatever you call them. D&D doesn't have these, though it does have Rez magic; yet I advocate houserules that prevent insta-gibs. For instance, we handle negative HP more leniently than per RAW.

6. See 5. Also, guards are not necessarily cannonfodder in my games.

7. I had to think a bit about this, and I guess that depends on the player and the situation. Let's say I wouldn't dismiss the possibility of ignoring a rule if enforcing it would ruin the session.

8. It's the player's responsibility to IP-proof their characters so they can pull off those stunts. That said, failure does not necessarily have to be lethal. "Risky" can also mean that failure drains some resources and/or makes encounters more difficult.

9. I suppose nobody wants to die. In some situations it can be a great roleplaying experience, such as the epic defense of a narrow against overwhelming odds to buy some time for your allies. But again, the players should have the option to save their lives, although that may have other ingame consequences ("Fork this, I'm skipping this hole").

10. Only if it can be justified ingame. However, when a character drops below 0HP, he is usually ignored as target for the rest of the encounter, if that seems appropriate. (This has its roots in Conan D20, where you can spend a Fate Point to be "Left for Dead".)

Earthwalker
2011-05-13, 07:09 AM
I am of the nerf side of the line I think here.
1) Yes I would if the character did something to warrant death. Say a level 1 character meeting with a powerful level 20 wizard and the level 1 character tried attacking the wizard. The character will die. Not sure if this is me killing them, more them killing themselves, and that kind of situation should be stopped in character creation / campaign setup. Say if I know my main quest giver NPC was a powerful wizard, I would not allow a character in game that hates powerful wizards and attacks them on sight.
2) I play with different systems, in a lot of them metagame abilties allow people to survive certain doom, when I play those games you can for a limits number of times do the wrong thing and still live.
3) Generally I do the I you sure. If the players stick to the plan, then I run it as it should turn out. Who knows if they have fate points they may live and just knock off a fate point.
4) Yes and no. I would say its impossible for a player to die from something they don’t have a chance to find out about, but they can die from something they didn’t bother to find out about. Depends on system and game of course.
5) Yep I now (after some struggling) let the dice fall where they may with my rolls in the open. Of course players usually have metagame methods of helping tip the dice in their favour.
6) It can happen and I would let it, it hasn’t really happened to me yet tho.
7) Nope, tho players will when using fate points or what have you.
8) Generally I let the dice fall where they lay so a good plan can go wrong. You can tell the good plans as they are the ones that work. A good plan can provide bonuses to dice rolls and such. So I guessa yes here.
9) Not in most systems, when death is the end of the game for that character. I do feel set backs can be fun (or at least fun enabling).
10) I generally play the opponents on how they should react. I may not do this, I am trying but I can’t say I am not influenced by my players and their reactions to the game.

The questions are specific but depending on the game we are all playing have completely different over tones. In a game where death is a set back and not a game ending event (I am looking at you DnD) then killing people is the same as offering a set back.
Say the climbing example. If you fall in DnD and die and have the money the next day your walking around ready to fight. In Runequest you might shatter both your legs and then have to wait to get healed up. Both are set backs but don’t end the game. So asking when you kill needs some reference to how permeant death is.

Telonius
2011-05-13, 07:40 AM
1.Would you ever allow a character to die less then 15 minuets into a game session?

This kind of assumes I would ever have a combat less than 15 minutes into the start of an adventure (I wouldn't). But if I did, it depends on the experience level of the player and the nature of what people are expecting. First-timer? No way. They get Plot Armor until about three or four sessions in. One-shot adventure? Sure. Longer campaign? Probably not.

If we're just talking about 15 minutes into a generic game session (not necessarily the first one), then absolutely yes. I like ending sessions on a cliffhanger. If we ended the previous session right outside the dragon's lair, then yes, there's a chance that the dragon will eat one of the characters when they start combat at the beginning of the next session.


2.Do you feel that a character always must have a chance to escape even Certain Doom?

Yes, for certain values of "certain," "doom," and "escape." First of all, a truly "certain doom" scenario (world ends, characters all die) is not fun to play, unless that's what everybody is expecting. (Playing Call of Cthulhu counts as expecting it). Characters' actions do affect the gameworld, so there's always a chance of survival. If nothing else, the PCs can ally themselves with the "bad guys."


3.Would you let a character die for making a very obvious in game mistake while they are fully aware of what they are doing? (They make camp directly under a rocket, eat something poisonous, or wake up a hungry dragon)

Yes. I do not reward stupidity.


4.Would you let a character die for making an in game mistake that they were not aware of? (They pick hallway #2 that floods with lava at a set time)

Probably. "Our Rogue didn't check for traps" counts as "making a very obvious in game mistake," IMO. However, I don't go in for the old-school Gygaxian "You looked at the painting without crossing your eyes and hopping on one foot, make a Fort save" sort of trap.


5.Would you ever let a random dice roll kill a character?

Swords deliver damage based on a random die roll, so yes. If you're talking about, "Okay lightning bolt comes out of the blue, hits ... let's roll that ... Bob's character - too bad, Bob!" sort of random roll, then no.


6.Would you allow a character to 'die for nothing'? (Such as a guard just getting a lucky shot)


I don't use the "triple 20" variant, so this typically doesn't happen. If a guard happens to pull a full power-attack critical hit with a Scythe when attacking the Wizard? Well, them's the breaks.


7.would you ever not roll, or otherwise, not follow a game rule, to simply say what happens to keep a character alive?

In certain situations, yes. (See Plot Armor for Newbies). Most of the time, no.


8.Do you feel that players that come up with clever/good plans should not have to worry about their character dying during the plan? (They want to climb high, high up the wall to get to a lone window)

In the words of two very wise Jaegermonsters (http://www.girlgeniusonline.com/comic.php?date=20031017):
"Gorb, dis iz turnink into vun of dose plans. Hyu know - de kind vere ve keel everybody dot notices dot ve's killin' people?"
"It is?"
"Uh huh. And how do dose alvays end?"
"De dirigible iz in flames, everyboddyz dead, an' I've lost my hat."
"Dot's right. Und any plan vere you lose your hat iz?"
"A bad plan?"
"Right again!"


9.Do you think it's no fun for a character to die?

Depends on how hilarious/dramatic the death is.


10.Do you ever change the game play to protect and save a wounded character from dying? (The bad guy tosses way his gun to just punch the wounded character or the wizard suddenly casts a low level spell)[/QUOTE]

Only if the bad guy has a reason to do so. He knows the town guard is coming, and he wants them to see that the PCs are using deadly force and he isn't; he needs them alive for a demonic ceremony; something like that.

Tyndmyr
2011-05-13, 08:17 AM
So in another thread we started talking about the differences in style and philosophy between different games as:

Nerf Game--This game style philosophy is that the characters should never die or be subject to hardships. (Note this is Nerf as in to make out of foam so on one is hurt vs the traditional role-playing definition)

Meat-Grinder Game--This game style philosophy is that the characters can and will die and will be subject to hardships.

The Middle--Is between the two, of course.

Now, not counting games like call of Cthulhu(Meatgrinder) or Toon(Nerf) how do you do your game style philosophy?

I would say middle. Characters WILL suffer hardships, but they are not invariably expected to die. Death is a real possibility, though, as are other penalties for failure, depending on situation.


And as everyone will no doubt say 'middle', I have questions:


1.Would you ever allow a character to die less then 15 minuets into a game session?

Yes.


2.Do you feel that a character always must have a chance to escape even Certain Doom?

I'm not sure what you mean here. I design things such that players are not screwed from the start. There are ways to survive. I have no qualms about using no-save spells and the like, though. I've killed two characters via orb of annihilation. Is that a no?


3.Would you let a character die for making a very obvious in game mistake while they are fully aware of what they are doing? (They make camp directly under a rocket, eat something poisonous, or wake up a hungry dragon)

Yes. Hell yes. If this doesn't happen, the game becomes silly.


4.Would you let a character die for making an in game mistake that they were not aware of? (They pick hallway #2 that floods with lava at a set time)

Yes. Players should exercise caution and gather information to the best of their abilities.


5.Would you ever let a random dice roll kill a character?

Yes. Dice rolls exist to provide randomness. If you don't want the result of the die, why are you rolling in the first place?


6.Would you allow a character to 'die for nothing'? (Such as a guard just getting a lucky shot)

Yes. Guards are sometimes real threats. Minimizing encounters with them is a good idea. You'd be amazed at how much this cuts down on stupid evil play.


7.would you ever not roll, or otherwise, not follow a game rule, to simply say what happens to keep a character alive?

Negative. This has included players killing other players on the first session played, in a single round.


8.Do you feel that players that come up with clever/good plans should not have to worry about their character dying during the plan? (They want to climb high, high up the wall to get to a lone window)

If the plan makes your character die, it was not a good idea, hmm? I'm not going to alter the odds of success because of my perception of the plans values.


9.Do you think it's no fun for a character to die?

Depends. A death can be epic, fun, funny, or fondly remembered. This is not the case for all deaths, though.


10.Do you ever change the game play to protect and save a wounded character from dying? (The bad guy tosses way his gun to just punch the wounded character or the wizard suddenly casts a low level spell)

I would not do it just for that reason. I have made opponents before who prefer to capture instead of kill, or will handicap themselves for the challenge, or what have you....but that's a design decision. It's not a "I'll change it after the fact" decision.

Trekkin
2011-05-13, 08:29 AM
I'm working on setting up a Deadlands game with another DM at the moment, and we're making it a fairly heavy nerf, primarily because we're all slightly inured to the meatgrinder that is par for the course here. Actually, I tend to be more nerf prone, and my co-DM tends to favor the grinder, so we've hit a justifiable medium so far. Then again, we're DMing for a group that can't always be there in it's entirety and with new players, so we've good reason to keep the rampant character death in check, especially since the character outlines we're premaking are fairly close-knit and represent a party that's by nature fairly forgiving of player mistakes, and it would be hard to get around that. We're running mostly RAW, so deliberate stupidity can certainly cause major injuries, but we're trying to make sure that there's enough healing and so forth around that a character death will represent multiple failures by a significant portion of the party over a period of time, which I've always felt is the best philosophy.

In short, character deaths will be both meaningful and indicative of a clear problem within the party.

Kerrin
2011-05-13, 10:42 AM
I would say I'm more Nerf than Meat. I will let characters die, but not due to random encounter X on the way to Mount Doom. Character death will need to mean something, unless it's the big boss fight, in which case anything goes.
I agree with this sentiment. I don't mind having my character die and I don't mind killing a character when I run games, but overall it's way more satisfying in both cases if a character's death is meaningful vs dying to random orc number 367,209.

Friv
2011-05-13, 11:05 AM
I consider the dichotomy here to be false, as shown by your list of questions. Every one of the ten questions is about dying, not about hardships.

I generally avoid killing players. It's a pain in the ass, it often damages the story the players have been building with each other, it means someone is sitting out a chunk of the session that they showed up to, it means they have to spend however much time making a new character... it's just generally bad for everyone.

On the other hand, I believe in hardships for the players. Success isn't easy. Sometimes, you just plain fail, and not every challenge is tailored to your capabilities. Players lose fights sometimes, or get outmaneuvered by their enemies.

I don't think that the death / life axis and the hardship / rainbow lane axis are actually the same thing. If you have a story where the only threat to the players is getting killed, but they're still going to win every mission and get all the treasure, that's still a different game style.

Tyndmyr
2011-05-13, 11:08 AM
I consider the dichotomy here to be false, as shown by your list of questions. Every one of the ten questions is about dying, not about hardships.

Would agree. Furthermore, the questions seem to imply that a Meatgrinder DM kills players more often.

The fact that I won't fudge to save players doesn't mean they die terribly often. I've seen many a fudging DM with a higher body count.

Hardships is a different thing from body count, which is a different thing from the manner in which death can come.

dsmiles
2011-05-13, 11:10 AM
I generally avoid killing players. So do I. It's messy, and there is usually jail time involved. :smalltongue:

Roderick_BR
2011-05-13, 11:14 AM
Hmm... let's see
1.Would you ever allow a character to die less then 15 minuets into a game session?
Only if a player makes a stupid decision, like attacking, alone, a bunch of orcs, armed with crossbows, in the dark (and the character was human), meaning that I can't save him with anything short of a divine intervention or EXTREME DM fiat.
2.Do you feel that a character always must have a chance to escape even Certain Doom?
The question should be: Do you ADD Certain Doom to your games? No, I always make challenges with varying levels of "mortality" but I usually don't do games that spell certain doom. Feels like railroading.
3.Would you let a character die for making a very obvious in game mistake while they are fully aware of what they are doing? (They make camp directly under a rocket, eat something poisonous, or wake up a hungry dragon)
Of course!
4.Would you let a character die for making an in game mistake that they were not aware of? (They pick hallway #2 that floods with lava at a set time)
Again, it's like the Certain Doom scenario. If you add it to a game, you WANT a PC to die, even if at a coin's flip. I usually make the VERY deadly places be at least not too hard to spot.
5.Would you ever let a random dice roll kill a character?
Though. In combats, I'd let, now, failing a random check against a trap is anti-climatic, so, I guess not.
6.Would you allow a character to 'die for nothing'? (Such as a guard just getting a lucky shot)
Again, too anti-climatic. I'd rather let the player have a reason to die (facing off a stronger enemy to gain time for his allies, for example).
7.would you ever not roll, or otherwise, not follow a game rule, to simply say what happens to keep a character alive?
Based on the previous 2 responses, only in silly and anticlimatic deaths. Any other normal case, no rules changing just to protect someone.
8.Do you feel that players that come up with clever/good plans should not have to worry about their character dying during the plan? (They want to climb high, high up the wall to get to a lone window)
Nah, good plans should give good results if the character suceeds. If there's risks, they'll have to face it.
9.Do you think it's no fun for a character to die?
When the death is well made (like a big battle where they know some won't make it back), death is part of the fun.
10.Do you ever change the game play to protect and save a wounded character from dying? (The bad guy tosses way his gun to just punch the wounded character or the wizard suddenly casts a low level spell)
No, I don't change behaviors or ambients just to protect players. If a NPC is meant to kill someone, that someone must make sure to not die. I know most players won't hold back punchs against the NPCs anyway.

Yeah, I like average. Death happens. I don't protect PCs, and I don't throw random deaths for nothing.

Tengu_temp
2011-05-13, 11:25 AM
I kill PCs only when they do something ridiculously stupid and/or disruptive (haven't encounted this in a long, long time, I play with smart people and good roleplayers in general), or when the players choose to let their characters die to accomplish some kind of goal (a heroic sacrifice to save someone else, for example). I never really had to intervene to keep a PC alive, though, I mostly play 4e and M&M, games where it's very hard to die.

But do I throw them hardships? Oh yeah. Most of the combat encounters are hard, sudden twists working to the PCs disadvantage are common, the bad guys often achieve major successes, and the players have to work towards their goals. At the same time, I try to make sure that the story is always interesting and cool, not a marathon of DM sadism. It works very well, I think.

Telonius
2011-05-13, 11:42 AM
So do I. It's messy, and there is usually jail time involved. :smalltongue:

Though if there's a Sarrukh involved, no jury in the world would convict you. :smallbiggrin:

Mastikator
2011-05-13, 11:51 AM
I'm a meatgrinder kind of DM and player, sometimes I like to go for middle though. I like to think of PCs as expendable :P

1. Allow? Yes, but I'd hint the player away from a bad decision if said player is new to the game. Seasoned player on the other hand get no hand holding.
2. It's not really certain doom if a player can escape. Though, I usually avoid certain doom scenarios since they get old fast.
3. Yep.
4. Yes, but I may hint that it's not a good idea; "So, you run after the wolf alone into the darkness?", he changed his mind about that decision.
5. Yes.
6. Of course.
7. It has happened but only when either a) I really want them to proceed, b) I miscalculated the danger of my foes or c) the players are newbies. However I try to not do this too often since I don't want my players to get the wrongful impression that they have plot-armor.
8. If the plan involves high risk of death then it's not very clever is it? No, absolutely not.
9. Death isn't the fun part, but they won't fear enemies and monsters if they know they'll win.
10. Rarely. The NPCs want to live, and fleeing is an option even for them. And nobody is fully rational all the time, not even NPCs, but like with everything, it works best in moderation.

Firechanter
2011-05-13, 11:52 AM
I'll also add, particularly regarding questions #3 and #4, that I'm very careful with making assumptions what the players "could have known", "might have guessed" or "could have found" etc. Unfortunately, some DMs still have the horrible habit of requiring players to read their (the DM's) mind. I guess that habit has existed ever since, but was probably reinforced by certain video games that are objectively unsolvable without a guidebook.

In short, the game must be fair. Making a room a lethal trap that can only be stopped by pressing the wall tiles C3, Z52 and K13 in the correct order while sacrificing a chicken and chanting in Welsh is _not_ fair.

BlackestOfMages
2011-05-13, 12:12 PM
middle leaning towards meatgrinder - I like a challange, something just rolling dice won't win. I like games that require quite a lot of thought, and stratagy, as well as good skill rolls

1.Would you ever allow a character to die less then 15 minuets into a game session?

did they act like an idiot so they're in a situation where they'd die, or it's something now totally out of this world? if so, yes. if it's something like a critical hit on the 1st level mage that causes 40-something damage, then no, I wouldn't. because that's a bit too mean

2.Do you feel that a character always must have a chance to escape even Certain Doom?

well, yeah. I think they should be able to avoid certain doom, like not doing the thing that would cause certain doom in the first place. that's a good way to avoid certain doom:smalltongue: if you decide to pee of an ancient dragon, or blast a pesant with a magic missle in front of a freidnly army, you should suffer the concequences.

3.Would you let a character die for making a very obvious in game mistake while they are fully aware of what they are doing? (They make camp directly under a rocket, eat something poisonous, or wake up a hungry dragon)

yes, if they knew this could kill them realisticly.

4.Would you let a character die for making an in game mistake that they were not aware of? (They pick hallway #2 that floods with lava at a set time)

no. I don't like railroads, nor do I like 'flip a coin to see if you win' games. If one way is filed with Lava, then they'll have the option to turn around, or there will be rope bridges. or they'll be in a dungeon like the well of darkness or maze of many in Goblins (http://www.goblinscomic.com/02152011/)

5.Would you ever let a random dice roll kill a character?

random as in for no reason? no. I;d let a trap kill a player, if the trap was obvious it was there 9if not how it worked), but not just a 'roll a fort save or have your heart explode' without a good reason

6.Would you allow a character to 'die for nothing'? (Such as a guard just getting a lucky shot)

yes. there's rules for combat for a reason. unless the encounter was rather overleveled, in which case they'd just be unconcious.

7.would you ever not roll, or otherwise, not follow a game rule, to simply say what happens to keep a character alive?

depends on how epic their death was (IE: if its from falling off a roof for pratting around, then no. If it was by falling off a roof after swinginging in off a dragon to kick the BBEG of his pedestal, save the damsel in distress and free the rest of the party, then they'll live (probably by the aforementioned dragon :))

8.Do you feel that players that come up with clever/good plans should not have to worry about their character dying during the plan? (They want to climb high, high up the wall to get to a lone window)

well, if the character could die during the plan, then they'll die. I;d say a clever/good plan would minimise the chance of death.though I would stop someone strong-arming a plan on the party they don't want.

9.Do you think it's no fun for a character to die?

depends on the game/character in questions. and the players. I'm fine with it personally; it's an odd campaing when I don't end up on at least the 2nd character, or close to it, but some particualrly epic characters spoil the game with their death. I do ask for oppinions before saving though.

10.Do you ever change the game play to protect and save a wounded character from dying? (The bad guy tosses way his gun to just punch the wounded character or the wizard suddenly casts a low level spell)[/QUOTE]

no. just no.

well, unless it's a particularly sadistic persona that likes torture/the thingy dosen't feel the PC's can harm them, or know they have a arder chalange ahead and need to save x for later/ulterior motives to fight that don't involve death. but that's not so much changing tactics as going by the NPC's nature

valadil
2011-05-13, 12:41 PM
In short, the game must be fair. Making a room a lethal trap that can only be stopped by pressing the wall tiles C3, Z52 and K13 in the correct order while sacrificing a chicken and chanting in Welsh is _not_ fair.

Surprising them with that room is not fair. Putting it in a dungeon with a warning that says "don't go in here without the password unless you want to roll a new character" is fair game.

Tyndmyr
2011-05-13, 12:45 PM
Surprising them with that room is not fair. Putting it in a dungeon with a warning that says "don't go in here without the password unless you want to roll a new character" is fair game.

Legit.

You'll note that the Tomb of Horrors is replete with warnings of it's lethality, for instance. If players choose to go there in spite of the warnings, then enjoy.

Designing the entire world like the Tomb of Horrors would be a bit silly though. Unless it's a really, really terrible world, and your players like that sort of thing.

Morghen
2011-05-13, 12:55 PM
1.Would you ever allow a character to die less then 15 minuets into a game session?Yes. It's not very often that we get into a combat in the first 15 minutes, but it has happened. But we also play every week. YMMV if you only play once a month or whatever. Just the same, if I know that my GM isn't going to kill me in the first 15 (or five or 30 or whatever), that's when I'm gonna be pulling all my shenanigans.


2.Do you feel that a character always must have a chance to escape even Certain Doom?No. If you land in the trash compactor on the Death Star and you didn't bring R2, that's on you.


3.Would you let a character die for making a very obvious in game mistake while they are fully aware of what they are doing? (They make camp directly under a rocket, eat something poisonous, or wake up a hungry dragon)Obvious danger is obvious.


4.Would you let a character die for making an in game mistake that they were not aware of? (They pick hallway #2 that floods with lava at a set time)I'd give them a chance to be aware of it. I'd give them perception checks (or whatever the specific system has) to notice that the walls are burned smooth or that the walls are still radiating heat from when the lava came down hours ago. If the whole party blows their "noticing danger" checks, then yes. They should be better at noticing danger.


5.Would you ever let a random dice roll kill a character?Yes. If mooks can't kill me then I'm not interested in the game. I don't want my hand held.


6.Would you allow a character to 'die for nothing'? (Such as a guard just getting a lucky shot)See my answer to #5. Adventuring, defending the world from super-villains, shadowrunning, etc. are all dangerous. Sometimes the henchman is going to get in a lucky shot. It sucks, but if the henchmen can't hurt the PCs, then why put them there (as the GM)?


7.would you ever not roll, or otherwise, not follow a game rule, to simply say what happens to keep a character alive?NO.


8.Do you feel that players that come up with clever/good plans should not have to worry about their character dying during the plan? (They want to climb high, high up the wall to get to a lone window)Rule of Cool doesn't let you cheat gravity. A clever plan is one that allows for your continued survival.


9.Do you think it's no fun for a character to die?Yes? With the way this is worded I don't know if a "yes" or "no" is the answer I want to give. I agree. It is often a pain in the ass when a character dies. I like my PCs. I raised them up from 1st level and I've gotten attached to them. But I have also accepted the verisimilitude of the systems I've played in. Unless I'm playing Toon, I'm okay with my PCs dying.


10.Do you ever change the game play to protect and save a wounded character from dying? (The bad guy tosses way his gun to just punch the wounded character or the wizard suddenly casts a low level spell)I'm not a GM, but I would not. And I'd be irritated at a GM who did that. I can only think of one specific set of circumstances where I'd be okay with a bad guy ignoring a critically wounded PC: Bad guy(s) is facing multiple PCs. A PC gets dropped (knocked unconscious, -1 and bleeding, etc.) and the bad guy ignores him to focus on people who can still attack him. Animals, on the other hand, may try to eat the downed opponent.

If I'm fighting for my life and I know that an opponent is close to going down, I would definitely NOT go easy on him. He's trying to kill me.

I think that's one of the easiest fixes a GM can make to liven up their campaign: Change the faceless mook into a guy trying to stay alive and things are going to get interesting. What would you do to survive an encounter with people way stronger and meaner than you?

Talya
2011-05-13, 12:59 PM
On the nerf side of middle. I have had characters in my games die. (One actually died at the hands of the rest of the party.) But we're telling a story. We don't get to see how the story ends if the crew dies. Individually, nobody is untouchable, but in general, dying should either require great stupidity, or great meaningful sacrifice. (Dramatically appropriate death is a good thing!)

kyoryu
2011-05-13, 01:04 PM
1.Would you ever allow a character to die less then 15 minuets into a game session?

I disagree with the term "allow." The game runs by rules. If a player gets into a situation where his character may die, so be it.


2.Do you feel that a character always must have a chance to escape even Certain Doom?

If the character got themselves into the Certain Doom scenario by their decisions, then no. If they got into it by DM fiat, yes.


3.Would you let a character die for making a very obvious in game mistake while they are fully aware of what they are doing? (They make camp directly under a rocket, eat something poisonous, or wake up a hungry dragon)

Yes. Absolutely.


4.Would you let a character die for making an in game mistake that they were not aware of? (They pick hallway #2 that floods with lava at a set time)

Generally - if there was a reasonable way for them to acquire that information.


5.Would you ever let a random dice roll kill a character?

Depends on the "random dice roll." Completely random, with no warning? Not really. A random consequence of a player choice? Sure.


6.Would you allow a character to 'die for nothing'? (Such as a guard just getting a lucky shot)

They were fighting the guards for some reason, right? Which would mean that wasn't "for nothing." They made a decision to fight the guards.


7.would you ever not roll, or otherwise, not follow a game rule, to simply say what happens to keep a character alive?

Depends on the situation. Generally, no. But, I also feel that D&D <4e is too harsh with the death rules, generally. 4e is closer to the feel I like in death rules (getting knocked out is easy, actually getting killed is harder).


8.Do you feel that players that come up with clever/good plans should not have to worry about their character dying during the plan? (They want to climb high, high up the wall to get to a lone window)

A plan that gets them killed wasn't a very good plan, was it?


9.Do you think it's no fun for a character to die?

Generally, it's not fun to have a character die. However, the very real possibility of character death is what makes the victories fun.


10.Do you ever change the game play to protect and save a wounded character from dying? (The bad guy tosses way his gun to just punch the wounded character or the wizard suddenly casts a low level spell)

NPCs are (reasonably) smart. They do (reasonably) smart things. Capturing an enemy may make more sense than killing them outright.


I would say I'm more Nerf than Meat. I will let characters die, but not due to random encounter X on the way to Mount Doom.

Random encounters aren't meaningless. THey're part of the risk of taking a particular course of action. If there's no risk in them, don't run them. (Which actually makes more sense for a narrative-driven game, vs. a more player-driven game).

Tyndmyr
2011-05-13, 01:20 PM
If a player manages to die 15 minutes into the game, stupidity was almost certainly involved.

Murphy80
2011-05-13, 01:37 PM
1.Would you ever allow a character to die less then 15 minuets into a game session?
Yes

2.Do you feel that a character always must have a chance to escape even Certain Doom?
Yes, if the Certain Doom is plot related.
No, if they brought it on themselves.

3.Would you let a character die for making a very obvious in game mistake while they are fully aware of what they are doing? (They make camp directly under a rocket, eat something poisonous, or wake up a hungry dragon)
Yes

4.Would you let a character die for making an in game mistake that they were not aware of? (They pick hallway #2 that floods with lava at a set time)
No

5.Would you ever let a random dice roll kill a character?
Yes, isn't combat/saves all about random die rolls.


6.Would you allow a character to 'die for nothing'? (Such as a guard just getting a lucky shot)
Yes, if they brought it on themselves.
No, if it is plot related.

7.would you ever not roll, or otherwise, not follow a game rule, to simply say what happens to keep a character alive?
Not....not...to keep..What?
Yes, if it is plot related.
No, if they brought it on themselves.


8.Do you feel that players that come up with clever/good plans should not have to worry about their character dying during the plan? (They want to climb high, high up the wall to get to a lone window)
No, their plan, their risk.

9.Do you think it's no fun for a character to die?
No, character death can be fun, if it is heroic and colorful.


10.Do you ever change the game play to protect and save a wounded character from dying? (The bad guy tosses way his gun to just punch the wounded character or the wizard suddenly casts a low level spell)
Yes, but only if it is appropriate for the situation. Example: normally my bad guys will NOT coup de grace a PC thats down if there are other targets available.

Knaight
2011-05-13, 01:57 PM
The fact that I won't fudge to save players doesn't mean they die terribly often. I've seen many a fudging DM with a higher body count.

Hardships is a different thing from body count, which is a different thing from the manner in which death can come.

Very true, on both points. I don't fudge, and yet in a solid 7 years of playing a whole 3 characters have died to something other than friendly fire*. Friendly fire meanwhile is sitting around 8. That's very low, particularly considering the level of stupidity involved in 2 of those 3 non friendly fire deaths.

Now, hardship is just to be expected. I have entire settings where the premise involves chasing after an impossible goal and suffering on the way, and these settings are inevitably loved. In all others, conflict simple emerges through intelligent agency, as one would expect.

*This number is about to increase dramatically, due to a very structured game all players are on board with (https://docs.google.com/document/d/1nOu3Lb3u6Gzdd3TmMew-wzAHreqlyqk6Arg4ZDPwbuY/edit?hl=en&authkey=CL6-9ZQJ&pli=1#), which is largely experimental anyways..

Firechanter
2011-05-13, 02:48 PM
I guess my major beef with fudging GMs is that their fudging (in my experience) usually goes both ways. You succeed at exactly what the DM wants you to succeed at, and you fail at what he wants you to fail. Your stats, your char's strengths and weaknesses, any effort you put into your character, is just wasted, pointless, moot.
One player of my current group is such a GM, as I had to find out. The first couple of sessions it was great, until after a while I realized that he runs the game in the described manner. My enthusiasm rapidly dropped off at that point.
I call this GMing style "By the grace of god", because no matter how well (or poorly) you rolled, he always described it as if you had just barely "somehow" made it, making it quit obvious that in his mind he only "let" you succeed in his unending generousity.

dsmiles
2011-05-13, 03:07 PM
Designing the entire world like the Tomb of Horrors would be a bit silly though. Unless it's a really, really terrible world, and your players like that sort of thing.I want to play in this game. :smallbiggrin: That would be so comic. (Like the way I run Gamma World.) Everyone keeps a backup character on hand at all times. The round after the old character dies, the new one "pops in" with this "WTF?!?!?:smalleek:" expression on their face. Games this hilarious shouldn't be allowed.

Vladislav
2011-05-13, 03:08 PM
1.Would you ever allow a character to die less then 15 minuets into a game session?
2.Do you feel that a character always must have a chance to escape even Certain Doom?
3.Would you let a character die for making a very obvious in game mistake while they are fully aware of what they are doing? (They make camp directly under a rocket, eat something poisonous, or wake up a hungry dragon)
4.Would you let a character die for making an in game mistake that they were not aware of? (They pick hallway #2 that floods with lava at a set time)
5.Would you ever let a random dice roll kill a character?
6.Would you allow a character to 'die for nothing'? (Such as a guard just getting a lucky shot)
7.would you ever not roll, or otherwise, not follow a game rule, to simply say what happens to keep a character alive?
8.Do you feel that players that come up with clever/good plans should not have to worry about their character dying during the plan? (They want to climb high, high up the wall to get to a lone window)
9.Do you think it's no fun for a character to die?
10.Do you ever change the game play to protect and save a wounded character from dying? (The bad guy tosses way his gun to just punch the wounded character or the wizard suddenly casts a low level spell)

1. Never actually came up yet, but in the right circumstances, I guess, yes.
2. Not always
3. Yes
4. No
5. Yes
6. Same as 5, yes
7. Sometimes
8. No
9. Tricky question. It's no fun for a character to die, but it's also no fun for a player to know his character will never die. Some amount of failure must exist in the world to make success look more exciting in comparison
10. Only if it's in character for the bad guy.

Talakeal
2011-05-13, 04:53 PM
1.Would you ever allow a character to die less then 15 minuets into a game session?
2.Do you feel that a character always must have a chance to escape even Certain Doom?
3.Would you let a character die for making a very obvious in game mistake while they are fully aware of what they are doing? (They make camp directly under a rocket, eat something poisonous, or wake up a hungry dragon)
4.Would you let a character die for making an in game mistake that they were not aware of? (They pick hallway #2 that floods with lava at a set time)
5.Would you ever let a random dice roll kill a character?
6.Would you allow a character to 'die for nothing'? (Such as a guard just getting a lucky shot)
7.would you ever not roll, or otherwise, not follow a game rule, to simply say what happens to keep a character alive?
8.Do you feel that players that come up with clever/good plans should not have to worry about their character dying during the plan? (They want to climb high, high up the wall to get to a lone window)
9.Do you think it's no fun for a character to die?
10.Do you ever change the game play to protect and save a wounded character from dying? (The bad guy tosses way his gun to just punch the wounded character or the wizard suddenly casts a low level spell)

1: Yes, although I wouldn't be surprised if their new character looked exactly like their old character.
2: If they are in a "certain" doom situation it is because they put themself there.
3: Yes, if the dice fell that way
4: Yes, if the dice fell that way, although I would usually have good reason for putting that hallway in the game in the first place and the player's will throw a fit afterwards assuming it was a conspiracy to kill them
5: No, I would have it cripple them or knock them out though.
6: See above.
7: See above.
8: If it is actually a good plan then they should have no more chance of dying than on a random roll. If part of the plan is to sacrifice themself or take a stupid chance see #2.
9: Usually not, but sometimes it is. The trick is seeing beforehand.
10: I try and run a consistent world, so if there is a valid excuse for keeping a character alive I will take it. However, if there is no valid excuse I will let them die, I am a killer DM like that.

Thrawn183
2011-05-14, 10:16 PM
Q1.Would you ever allow a character to die less then 15 minuets into a game session?
A1: Yes, but resurrection magic is not particularly rare in my campaigns. Character death does not require drawing up a new character.

Q2.Do you feel that a character always must have a chance to escape even Certain Doom?
A2: A character always at least has a chance to avoid the situation in the first place. The closest I would come to this is killing a character that goes into an active volcano without any fire resistance. I expect at least a little preparation.

Q3.Would you let a character die for making a very obvious in game mistake while they are fully aware of what they are doing? (They make camp directly under a rocket, eat something poisonous, or wake up a hungry dragon)
A3: I will usually inform the player that their character would almost certainly know not to do that, because of the potential consequences. If the player decides to do it anyway, then they have chosen to accept where the dice fall.

Q4.Would you let a character die for making an in game mistake that they were not aware of? (They pick hallway #2 that floods with lava at a set time)
A4: I would if they failed to prepare themselves even miminally for a potentially dangerous environment. No fire resistance in an active volcano, no ability to swim or breathe underwater in an aquatic adventure.

Q5.Would you ever let a random dice roll kill a character?
A5: I only roll things when I don't already know the outcome. If there's a fight where the action is rolled out, anything can happen. If an enemy can cast an instant death spell, they're a serious opponent. Again though, resurrection magic is available in my setting.

Q6.Would you allow a character to 'die for nothing'? (Such as a guard just getting a lucky shot)
A6: Yes. I only roll for things where I don't already know the outcome.

Q7.would you ever not roll, or otherwise, not follow a game rule, to simply say what happens to keep a character alive?
A7: No. I follow the game rules when I don't know what's going to happen. If I've determined the PC's are going to win something without significant losses, I'll just ask them to RP it.

Q8.Do you feel that players that come up with clever/good plans should not have to worry about their character dying during the plan? (They want to climb high, high up the wall to get to a lone window)
A8: I work to encourage lateral thinking, so there are rarely negative consequences for doing so. Generally speaking, it's not a clever/good plan if it ends up with you being a smear on the floor.

Q9.Do you think it's no fun for a character to die?
A9: Character death can be a lot of fun, especially if it isn't the end of the session just because someone needs to roll up a new character.

Q10.Do you ever change the game play to protect and save a wounded character from dying? (The bad guy tosses way his gun to just punch the wounded character or the wizard suddenly casts a low level spell)[/QUOTE]
A10: Generally downed PC's don't get attacked because enemies have better things to do with their time. This can change with specific enemies (say assassins) or enemies that have seen the PC's repeatedly heal themselves back into fighting condition.

Dienekes
2011-05-14, 11:25 PM
I think I'm middle with a dash of meat grinder.

1.Would you ever allow a character to die less then 15 minutes into a game session?
We have a house rule that we've has been passed down to us from an earlier group we all sprang from. The very first campaign you're roughly immortal. If you lose a fight and die you will miraculously survive it (with all other consequences) unless you abuse this privilege, then you're character is mine to kill as I will.

2.Do you feel that a character always must have a chance to escape even Certain Doom?
It'd be kind of a lame GM to do otherwise. Unless you're playing Call of Cthulhu of course.

That said my players understand that the world is fully developed and not everything is level appropriate. If I tell them that there is a powerful dragon on the hill and they decide to charge up it at level 7 then the only way to avoid certain doom is to realize half way through the charge that it's suicide and run back down. Otherwise, the dragon is getting cooked PC for dinner.

3.Would you let a character die for making a very obvious in game mistake while they are fully aware of what they are doing? (They make camp directly under a rocket, eat something poisonous, or wake up a hungry dragon)
Yes. Without blinking and possibly while grinning and mocking them.

4.Would you let a character die for making an in game mistake that they were not aware of? (They pick hallway #2 that floods with lava at a set time)
Yes, there would be a possible way out of course but if they fail that then the character is gone.

5.Would you ever let a random dice roll kill a character?
Huh? If an enemy scores a crit and kills them they're dead.

6.Would you allow a character to 'die for nothing'? (Such as a guard just getting a lucky shot)
Yes, but this has only happened once.

7.would you ever not roll, or otherwise, not follow a game rule, to simply say what happens to keep a character alive?
I don't think I ever have. Admittedly I don't always follow the game rules but that's more for keeping the pace going than wanting the buggers to survive.

8.Do you feel that players that come up with clever/good plans should not have to worry about their character dying during the plan? (They want to climb high, high up the wall to get to a lone window)
Clever plans are rewarded if they work, if the plan doesn't work and gets you killed then it wasn't all that clever a plan now was it? So yes, I'd off them.

9.Do you think it's no fun for a character to die?
What's life without risk? I don't think it's fun when your character dies, but knowing you've gone through hell and risked a character and still came out victorious is far better then always knowing you're going to come out fine.

10.Do you ever change the game play to protect and save a wounded character from dying? (The bad guy tosses way his gun to just punch the wounded character or the wizard suddenly casts a low level spell)
Sort of. I feel in the height of battle people will be more worried about those who can fight back. If a player gets knocked into unconsciousness the enemies will probably go fight someone else (though whether they actually do or not is determined by dice roll) unless they're professional assassins or the character gets caught in a area of effect.

That said I also keep a count of mook morale. This was unintentional but twice now I've had a downed and nearly killed character survive because the mooks morale went to 0 and so they fled or surrendered.

Drakevarg
2011-05-14, 11:43 PM
Meat-grinder, definitely.


1.Would you ever allow a character to die less then 15 minuets into a game session?

I once killed a PC on the first round of a session. He slipped and fell off a hundred-foot cliff. It was hilarious.


2.Do you feel that a character always must have a chance to escape even Certain Doom?

Survival must always be theoretically possible, if improbable.

Preferably, it should be guaranteed if the PCs play their cards right instead of relying on lucky rolls, but I don't have enough confidence in my abilities as a DM to consistantly pull that off.


3.Would you let a character die for making a very obvious in game mistake while they are fully aware of what they are doing? (They make camp directly under a rocket, eat something poisonous, or wake up a hungry dragon)

Yes. Actions have consequences. Occasionally hilarious ones.


4.Would you let a character die for making an in game mistake that they were not aware of? (They pick hallway #2 that floods with lava at a set time)

Only if there is opportunity to realize and correct the mistake between the act of making the mistake and the act of dying horribly.


5.Would you ever let a random dice roll kill a character?

Yes.


6.Would you allow a character to 'die for nothing'? (Such as a guard just getting a lucky shot)

Yes.


7.would you ever not roll, or otherwise, not follow a game rule, to simply say what happens to keep a character alive?

No.


8.Do you feel that players that come up with clever/good plans should not have to worry about their character dying during the plan? (They want to climb high, high up the wall to get to a lone window)

No.


9.Do you think it's no fun for a character to die?

No, but it's also no fun for a character to have no chance of dying, either.


10.Do you ever change the game play to protect and save a wounded character from dying? (The bad guy tosses way his gun to just punch the wounded character or the wizard suddenly casts a low level spell)

I did that exactly once when I realized I made a grave miscalculation, reducing a pair of Medium Earth Elementals to Small Earth Elementals in between rounds. This is because it was less "very very dangerous" and more "utterly predictable curb stomp."

John Campbell
2011-05-15, 01:27 AM
I don't really feel like filling out surveys, so I'll just put it like this:

If a PC dies in one of my campaigns, it will be the result of a decision the player made - a meaningful decision, where they could, at some point, have chosen an option that avoided death - that they knew (or at least reasonably should have known... and if the PC reasonably should know but the player doesn't appear to, I'll tell them) carried the risk of death, and that they at least had access to the means of evaluating good and bad choices for.

Choosing to fight rather than run, even against mooks, counts. Choosing to open an innocuous door in a place that there's no reason to believe is threatening does not. Choosing to open a door in the notoriously trapped cursed tomb that everyone back in town warned them about totally counts. Choosing to stab yourself with a poisoned dagger in order to "build up an immunity to the poison"... I will find a way for this to kill you. (Seriously, I had a player do that once. Only time I've ever killed a PC before the game started.)

In some cases, choosing to join the game counts. If I'm running a zombie apocalypse game, and a PC opens an innocuous door, rolls badly on a dodge check, and gets their throat ripped out by the ravenous dead in the first thirty seconds of the game, well, them's the breaks. But in that sort of situation, I'll make sure that when the players are making the relevant choice - joining a zombie apocalypse game - they know that they probably shouldn't get terribly attached to their characters. And have mechanisms in place to introduce replacements. (Paranoia has this nicely built in.)

J.Gellert
2011-05-15, 03:36 AM
I used to be more "nerf" in the past, even fudging results. However, I've lately come to believe very much in the die roll - which means I roll in front of my players, and if it kills them, then it kills them.

My campaigns are very story-driven which means player death isn't as "easy" as in dungeon-crawling. My current way of doing things (read: killing) is the result of players getting (over time) too accustomed to winning battles - when their first response to every problem is "Let's kill him/her/them." then you know they need to be taught a lesson.

However, even today, if I can find a way to teach this lesson without character death, I will take it. It usually involves heavy item loss.

zorba1994
2011-05-15, 11:08 AM
1.Would you ever allow a character to die less then 15 minuets into a game session?
No. I'd let them have a full sonata.

In all seriousness, I would only allow this with A. veteran players (I fear my noobies may get exasperated at having to create a character AGAIN) and B. if they deserved it. They're probably not going to run into anything that lethal that fast.


2.Do you feel that a character always must have a chance to escape even Certain Doom?
What part of "Certain Doom" isn't clear? I do not feel this. However, I will often give my players an opportunity to run (even if it means abandoning another PC).


3.Would you let a character die for making a very obvious in game mistake while they are fully aware of what they are doing? (They make camp directly under a rocket, eat something poisonous, or wake up a hungry dragon)
Yes. If they try to eat the gelatinous ooze, they die (true story).


4.Would you let a character die for making an in game mistake that they were not aware of? (They pick hallway #2 that floods with lava at a set time)
I probably wouldn't set up such a situation. That's just being petty.


5.Would you ever let a random dice roll kill a character?
Only with veteran players, and remember that this will likely only knock them unconscious. They're not dead yet, and I'll probably give the party a chance to retreat.


6.Would you allow a character to 'die for nothing'? (Such as a guard just getting a lucky shot)
Yes. See earlier comment about unconsciousness.


7.would you ever not roll, or otherwise, not follow a game rule, to simply say what happens to keep a character alive?
Only to save my 1st time players. I don't want them discouraged



8.Do you feel that players that come up with clever/good plans should not have to worry about their character dying during the plan? (They want to climb high, high up the wall to get to a lone window)
They should worry, but it will probably be less lethal than Plan A. "storm the castle", and seeing as the encounter was built for them to survive THAT, it should be doable.



9.Do you think it's no fun for a character to die?
If it's suitably epic enough, it can be fun.


10.Do you ever change the game play to protect and save a wounded character from dying? (The bad guy tosses way his gun to just punch the wounded character or the wizard suddenly casts a low level spell)

Yes. Basically, the party's warlock was reduced to 1 hp by snipers in the FIRST ROUND, and after that I had the enemies target other people first.

WarKitty
2011-05-15, 12:33 PM
I don't know if this has come up before, but what do you mean by "death"? I ask because I'm not very squeamish about letting the players in my rl game die - but they're level 13 in a pathfinder game. It's not like simple physical death is going to keep them down very long.

dsmiles
2011-05-15, 12:37 PM
Death, you know, time to get rezzed or roll a new character. (Personally, I prefer option 2.)

Firechanter
2011-05-15, 12:42 PM
Yes. Basically, the party's warlock was reduced to 1 hp by snipers in the FIRST ROUND, and after that I had the enemies target other people first.

Heh. When stuff like that happens in our games, i.e. when a PC is reduced to a very dangerous HP level, whether first round or whenever, we let that character go into "Possum Mode", i.e. they can feign death and be pretty sure they aren't attacked again for the time being; of course that requires the rest of the party to pick up the slack.

randomhero00
2011-05-15, 02:40 PM
For us, it starts as meat grinder (easily killed, too bad so sad) and then goes to nerf. And that is because by the time it goes to nerf the DM (me or the other dude) has a highly complex storyline and everyone has a part to play. If someone died off it'd ruin the story. However, he/I don't exactly pull punches either. By then res is possible. So we don't worry too much. But we always make sure there is a way back for that character.

olthar
2011-05-15, 02:51 PM
I kill characters, but I wouldn't call the game a meatgrinder.

1.Would you ever allow a character to die less then 15 minuets into a game session?

Yes. We end sessions all over. 15 minutes in might be 15 minutes into the giant boss fight that I decided the previous week we were not going to start at 2am.

2.Do you feel that a character always must have a chance to escape even Certain Doom?

I don't create certain doom situations. I don't want to hear the players complain about my putting an ancient black dragon in front of the only exit of the cave they were inside of being unfair. I agree, certain doom is unfair. I do play with relatively likely doom though (e.g. players surrounded by the king's elite and told to surrender or else because they had recently been involved in a failed assassination attempt at the king's son).

3.Would you let a character die for making a very obvious in game mistake while they are fully aware of what they are doing? (They make camp directly under a rocket, eat something poisonous, or wake up a hungry dragon)

YES.

4.Would you let a character die for making an in game mistake that they were not aware of? (They pick hallway #2 that floods with lava at a set time)

Yes, but I wouldn't make it certain. If hallway #2 floods with lava at 3pm and then is drained at 5, then it doesn't flood instantly. They get a chance to notice that it's getting hot all of a sudden. Then they get a chance to notice the lava beginning to seep into the room. Then they get a chance to notice the lava delivery device delivering the lava to the room. It's not, "oops, you got halfway down the hall at 3:03pm and at exactly 3:03pm the ceiling falls out and the room is immediately filled all the way to the top with lava."

5.Would you ever let a random dice roll kill a character?

YES.

6.Would you allow a character to 'die for nothing'? (Such as a guard just getting a lucky shot)

Yes.

7.would you ever not roll, or otherwise, not follow a game rule, to simply say what happens to keep a character alive?

No.

8.Do you feel that players that come up with clever/good plans should not have to worry about their character dying during the plan? (They want to climb high, high up the wall to get to a lone window)

A: Your example of a "clever plan" is not so clever. B: The best laid plans of mice and men often go awry.

9.Do you think it's no fun for a character to die?

Dying can be fun, educational, annoying, or any number of other things. It depends on context.

10.Do you ever change the game play to protect and save a wounded character from dying? (The bad guy tosses way his gun to just punch the wounded character or the wizard suddenly casts a low level spell)

No, but I also don't necessarily go after killing wounded people either. The enemies must know the guys are wounded.