PDA

View Full Version : When do the gloves come off? School of hard knocks?



Frenth Alunril
2012-06-21, 02:55 PM
I have seen a lot of chatter about nurse-maid DMs who pamper their players with a promise of no character death. I have seen statements to the affect of, "too much went into my character to have it die."

As a DM, I come from a peculiar school of "train them up and try to kill them, reasonably."

My players like it, because they get some free levels of play to learn the world they are in, to establish themselves. But I have a standing house rule that the gloves come off at level 5 and from there, they can go anywhere they like, but just because I introduced a dragon as a story item does not mean they stand a chance against it.

I guess it comes from a thing that happened to me.

orcs had ambushed our wagon, we didn't stand a chance. Everyone grabbed a horse and raced for the forest. I went last. On the escape, the fighter was thrown from her horse. Racing to save her, I lowered my hand and tried to swing her up to my horse. She made the strength check. I failed the ride check. We looked at each other, Drew our weapons and stood back to back, facing down the hoard so that our companions could go free. It was the most stoic I ever felt. Back to back with a champion, facing down a raging hoard of orcs. Sure we would die, but some of them would too, and it was going to be a story for the ages...

Until DM intervention. He scared away the orcs with unimportant story to save our skins. He made the vision crumble away with his saving hands, and still today I want to roll those dice, and watch as Geoffrey and Beth are over run by savages.

So, maybe I'm a relic, and my players are perverse, but character death is a fabulous tool.

What say ye?

Glimbur
2012-06-21, 03:26 PM
I generally have an idea of what the players will do next, and I try to come up with difficult but survivable challenges for them on that path. If they decide they want to dragon hunting instead... that is where PC death starts to pile up.

Oracle_Hunter
2012-06-21, 03:45 PM
It all depends on the game you're playing.
In Bliss Stage every character but 1 must "die" before the game is over. That manner of that death is entirely in the hands of the Player and can range from disintegration to permanent coma to fleeing your friends and allies and never returning. However, when the game says your character must die (and it will!) it is time to make your final scene.

In AD&D you could die from anything ranging from an assassin's dart to a fall off a horse. Even at "high" levels you were often one dice roll away from death. There were resurrection mechanics but they were typically out of reach of Players and, even then, often had the risk of Final Death or being returned as a squirrel. However, character creation was simple and advancing in level wasn't really the point of the game -- you gained some HP and some better saves but that was it. Since the journey was more important than the travelers it was OK to kill off characters now and then.

In 3rd Edition D&D death was random at low levels but increasingly rare as you went up. HP death became rare after your HP outpaced the crit damage of standard weapons and Save or Dies were mitigated by clever feat and class selection, not to mention purchases from the Magic Mart. Resurrection became easier and level progression became more important to the game -- every level was a chance to gain a new class or even a fancy Prestige Class! Losing all that work is frustrating to Players who want to try out all of those fancy options and making a new character becomes more complicated as the levels increase -- you can't just roll some dice and add a few numbers to show up as another Elven Magic-User by the side of the road. As a result, character death inconveniences everyone around, so it becomes relatively rarer.
IMHO, a DM tailors his style to the game he is running, or only selects games that conform to his style. It would be no better to kill off characters willy-nilly in a 3e game than it would be to save them in a game of Bliss Stage.

And, of course, you need to meet your Players' expectations. If your Players do not like it that you are or are not killing off their characters then you should adapt to suit their desires.

Morghen
2012-06-21, 03:51 PM
What say ye?I say you're not REALLY useful as an ally until you've had a few characters killed.

I don't want to go into [super-hard dungeon X] with some guy who is going to be dropping Fireballs too close to the party or unleashing war cries every 20 feet.

That being said: Stupid mistakes are important. You have to make them to learn anything.

kyoryu
2012-06-21, 03:56 PM
It all depends on the game you're playing.

Critical hit, Mr. Hunter.

(I will add that it goes beyond just the rules, and into the type of experience the game is about - you could theoretically play a 3rd ed style game in 1e, or vice versa, but you'd be fighting the rules to some extent.)

oxybe
2012-06-21, 04:02 PM
depends on the game, but for the most part, as a GM i try to challenge the players, not kill them.

as a GM, "... then they all died" is the worst possible outcome i believe i can have since it generally leads nowhere. i have no problem having the PCs lose, but losing still moves the game forward as i give them plenty of outs.

generally speaking i feel i've done my job if they've lost and wish they had died so as to not have to live with their failure then simply have the PCs shoved on pikes and be done with it.

as a player, if the more lethal the game, the less i feel the need to be invested in the character and by extension the campaign. i don't mind losing, but losing should mean something to both the character and the campaign. dying is one of the most boring outcomes i can think of for any character.

Masaioh
2012-06-21, 04:26 PM
I don't go out of my way to kill my players, but I tend to roll strings of 20s at the worst possible times. Human skeletons are still among the monsters my players fear the most because of those scimitars. That, and a Troll that got a greataxe critical and took the party meatshield from full hp to -17.

Okay, so the Troll cleaves you in half with a single swing. Roll your character's twin brother.

A set of orc barbarian triplets later...

Dire Panda
2012-06-21, 04:44 PM
In my experience, it depends heavily on what kind of story you (as DM) want to tell and whether your players have the same expectations. Talk to your players beforehand and make sure you want the same thing!

If your story is about a group of close friends or heroes marked by destiny, character death is probably something to avoid - have them taken prisoner, knocked unconscious and left for dead under rubble, or what have you. On the other hand, a game based on Greek epics (exactly how many of Odysseus's crew survived the journey home?) or a tense struggle for survival in a post-apocalyptic world crawling with zombies have character death as an integral part of the story, and players should be prepared for that.

I used to play with someone who routinely wrote five- or six-page backstories for each of her characters and actually cried when her character was swallowed by a dragon. It was all done by the rules, and was a suitably heroic death - she singlehandedly held it off while the rest of the party evacuated the village - but she was under the impression that her character was too important to the story to die. She left the game after that because I wouldn't retcon her death (and the campaign wasn't going to reach levels where True Rez was available). Lesson learned: talk these things out ahead of time. On the other end of the spectrum, I've had players who basically said "The story will be more interesting if I make this decision, even though I as a player know it's a bad idea. Can my character die in a way that furthers the story?" Both styles can make for a satisfying game if the players and the DM are on the same page.

(Character death can also be a maturity issue if your players are too young to accept the loss, so games for younger players should probably lean towards the former extreme)

Bearpunch
2012-06-21, 04:46 PM
It depends on the game for me. If I am running Pathfinder/Star Wars/4e, I want the players to feel relatively heroic and powerful, so they rarely die unless they mess up. Bad.

In Shadowrun, I want the players to feel like regular people that do dangerous work. I don't try to stack the odds too badly against them, but their Pink Mohawk style generally tends to backfire, so there is a high bodycount in that game. Mostly from two players who make really bad decisions, so it's not that bad.

All Flesh Must Be Eaten is another highly lethal game, even without the DM trying to murder the PCs. I don't attempt to murder the PCs and we have at least one person die every time we play. Guns are brutal in the game. One headshot without a helmet and you are done. Plain and simple.

In World of Darkness, however, you will die (We are playing Hunters). It is only a matter of time, or a matter of luck. It may sound harsh if you have never played Hunter, but that is actually how the game kind of works. I'm even merciful with characters, as only one of them has died during combat so far (others wanted to die for random reasons).

Hiro Protagonest
2012-06-21, 04:46 PM
(I will add that it goes beyond just the rules, and into the type of experience the game is about - you could theoretically play a 3rd ed style game in 1e, or vice versa, but you'd be fighting the rules to some extent.)

Yep. Exalted is all about big and epic heroes doing awesome things. Or sometimes mortals. They exist too.

But if you try to go to Nexus and take down the Guild's top men, expecting to come out alive, as a chargen Solar? Yeah. You could kill him if you're fast enough, but once the Emissary arrives, you're dead. If you do get out alive, you're the most wanted man in the Scavenger Lands, and a chunk of the Seventh Legion is coming after you, as well as the Wyld Hunt, and small mortal armies from Guild-dependent kingdoms. And if you defeat them, that leaves a power gap, meaning the Realm's coming from one side and Wyld barbarians from another. Then there are also the Infernals, who will take advantage of the chaos to raise their own kingdoms or destroy weakened ones, and the Abyssals, who are simply going to destroy weakened ones. And don't think the Deathlords are going to pass up this opportunity to invade Creation, once the Realm is in the midst of a three-sided war with the Scavenger Lands and the barbarians, they're going to immediately start bringing their armies through the Shadowlands, perhaps coming together to once again bring a disease forth, less powerful than the Great Contagion, but enough that Creation will no longer be able to stand against so many enemies. As the Deathlords strike, so does at least one Fair Folk army, eager to turn Creation back into Wyld. The Chernozem, Stewards, Viziers, and Lawgivers will all try their best, and the Infernals and Dragon-Blooded are going to turn back around to fend off the greater threats, but it will still harm Creation heavily, making it smaller and even less populated.

But if the Solar waits 'til later, not even necessarily that much later (given training times, probably a year. But this is considering people who live for thousands of years) he'll have a Circle. His group will be able to keep the kingdoms fed, stay the hand of the Seventh Legion, fight down the Emissary, have his own fighting force which he's trained to perfection with Tiger Warrior Training Technique and Legendary Warrior Curriculum, have allies among the Lunars who are ready for the Wyld Barbarians, possibly with troops under their command that you or one of your allies took the time to train with the previously mentioned training Charms, be able to tend to any disease weaker than the Great Contagion, supplied thaumaturges all over the world with salt, possibly have a deal going with the Guildsmen controlling the Caladrius Palace or just killed them off entirely and have one of your Circle members there with some mortal troops to fend off any ghosts or Guild mercs trying to seize the location, and then you can begin to orchestrate the downfall of the Guild.

EatAtEmrakuls
2012-06-21, 05:05 PM
In 30 levels, my party had numerous deaths, but each time I somehow made it meaningful:

Tiefling Paladin, level 4, died saving his comrades from Hobgoblins, resurrected as an Avenger. This also released the inner spirit of his Dragonborn comrade, who changed from Wizard to Sorcerer, so it worked on two levels, as they both wanted to change their characters.

Tiefling Avenger...again...level 9 this time. Defending a city from a demon Orc, died in combat.

Warforged Barbarian, level 9. Same battle. This one was permanent.

Minotaur Fighter, level 15. Went evil, joined a succubus, ended up killed by the party in a group fight. Party decided to revive him, cautiously. Took a vow of silence until he could redeem his actions.

Eladrin Cleric, level 17. Died fighting the Tarrasque. His soul ended up captured by a Lich chimera, and the party had to go fight to get it back.

Eladrin Cleric, level 18. He discovered all the horrible things his people had done to the devas, so he gave his life to correct a great error and reseal a rift, freeing ten-thousand of their souls.

Tiefling Paladin, after he changed back, level 19. Defending the newly gained Changeling Wizard, who was only fourteen years old, and had replaced the eladrin cleric.

Changeling Wizard, level 19. Died in the same battle. Both were resurrected as undead to fight their former allies, as a death guard and a lich, respectively.

Half-Orc Ranger, level 19. Killed by the undead tiefling in the ensuing battle.

Minotaur Fighter, level 26. Killed by mindflayers, which released a shard of Tharizdun's soul, and, after the mindflayer absorbed it, the party had to take the mindflayer with them and figure out how to get it back. It was eventually taken by another BBEG while the party was out getting a ritual from Vecna to fix the situation.

Dragonborn Sorcerer, level 28, fighting ten-thousand adult chromatic dragons on their way to kill Tiamat.

Lord.Sorasen
2012-06-21, 06:00 PM
I don't really think of it as pampering, really. I like to see characters die but I also like to see them live. Your story is fascinating to me because it actually lines up perfectly with the exception I have to not allowing character deaths. In your story, your characters made the decision that would lead to death, and accepted it. To me, the game is often about the narrative. I don't want the characters to die because the game world is full of deadly things. Sure you've established that the PCs aren't the walk of the walk, but you've also killed them all so the characters never really learned anything. Maybe the players did, but I feel like I'm not here to teach the players life lessons.

In a session I had just last week, one of the players, playing a very curious bard, walked up to what he thought was a dead corpse and turned out to be a zombie. The gunslinger in our party, having the best health and AC and being a hero, grabs him and moves him behind her. On his turn, he gets angry, because she is a woman and he is a MAN, and he has to be manly, and hiding behind a woman isn't manly. So he rushes around her and charges at the zombie. And is in a single attack moved to 2 hit points.

This wasn't smart at all. But it's the roleplaying I want to see. I think there's a gaming article the Giant posted a time ago about a paladin character he made who also made terrible decisions in the name of roleplaying. it's fascinating to me to see it happen.

The point is there's a difficult decision to make here: If I do not provide any help, and actively aim to kill a party that makes stupid errors, then I discourage the game as a roleplaying opportunity, which isn't what I wanted. But if I provide too much of a cushion, then there's no real risk in any action, and the daring acts of the players won't be seen as such because there's no real risk or sacrifice.

I suppose what I'm saying here is that I believe that character mortality must be decided by the scenario and the roleplay perspective.

Do I really need to say this last part? Just in case: What's fun for me isn't fun for everyone, but attaching "in my specific game" everywhere is really difficult so I'm going to hope you understand my position. I'm sure I could get into a game where tactics was valued more as well, really.

Sudain
2012-06-21, 06:09 PM
Unless I'm teaching them the game, the kid gloves were never put on to start with. And if I'm teaching you the game; I'll let you know "I'm focusing on AC so you learn that mechanic. Okay you got an AC of 30 at level 5? Wow, excellent. k, now I'm going to teach you about saves..." they they at least know I'm not picking on them; but slowly and thoroughly teaching them about the system.

Even if the story REQUIRES that person, they can expect serious wounds at best for stupidity. Otherwise if they die, they die. If they are too invested in their character to have them die then they should invest in a healthy dose of paranoia and caution. The world does not care about who you are and how important you think you are. If you want to live, then behave like it.

If they die to extreme unluck, then they will have a much easier time finding someone who will res them and front the cash. But they will also be expected to repay the cost or owe the resser a favor.

Being smart enough to live so a bard decides to tell stories about your exploits is a large part of being a epic, just as important as not picking bar fights and dying to a rusty bottle.

What would you do if you were exploring a mineshaft and you saw 4 well equipped bodies in the hall; half of which have a severe case of disembowelment? Charge forth? Loot the bodies? Come back with supplies? Or go find someplace else to be?

navar100
2012-06-21, 06:28 PM
It is not the DM's job to kill PCs.

A DM who boasts his PC death count is not a good DM.

A DM who doesn't feel he ran a good game unless a PC died or at least brought to negatives is not a good DM.

A DM who has a PC death rate to encounter/adventure arc ratio is not a good DM.

A DM who is proud he killed a PC is not a good DM.

None of the above means a PC should never, ever die. When it happens it's sad. When it happens it's a consequence. When it happens it's inherent in the risks.

Jeopardizer
2012-06-21, 06:51 PM
It depends.

As much as I don't mind seeing my characters die often in a dungeon crawl (what I like to call "tomb-raider parody") because the goal is to be the more genre-savvy bastard there is, I prefer the deaths of my chars, if they are permanent, to be a bit more meaningful in a story-driven campaign.

Dieing because of a fumble on a ride check (very bad DM) or because I failed a spot-check in a dark alley would have no purpose, I feel, if the campaign depends heavily on the characters. Alternatively, dieing in combat because of bad rolls/decisions/whatever is ok because it would enhance the story.

What I meant to say is: don't pull your punches but don't be an a**hole either.

Craft (Cheese)
2012-06-21, 07:00 PM
Not gonna lie, in practice I'm something of a carebear. I don't kill PCs unless they explicitly ask for it to happen: If they get in a situation where death or defeat seem imminent, I try to give them a way out at the cost of sacrificing something important to the character. "Those orcs look tougher than you can handle? Well you could always toss them your little sister as a distraction and make a run for it..." Generally it creates much more interesting possibilities for everyone involved than "You are dead. Roll up a new character."

Of course I realize this won't work with a munchkin who will *always* toss the girl to the orcs without a second thought, but I've never had to deal with that kind of player. Cross that bridge when I get to it, I guess.

Frenth Alunril
2012-06-21, 07:17 PM
I guess this turns into a couple of things:

No screen. My players want to know when I've crit on them. They like the rush. I made them promise not to shout out odds.

True treasure by the books. By level 8, a properly treasured party who has invested their money has access to full resurrection (provided it has a cleric of sufficient level as an npc ally.)

Sandbox. I don't have a story based on the players any more than some dreams or goals that they suggested in their back story. Players usually make enough trouble to spontaneously generate adventure.

The great provider: death. I had a player die recently. Opened a great conversation about whether the player wanted a new character or not. Did some solo, fugue plane rp that was fantastic. The player is fully motivated to play the character now. Party blew their wealth on Res, but found a king's hoard at the same time...

A new question, I see a lot of mention of a DM story:

Do you really have those? Don't get me wrong, I do prep, and the game has turned into something wonderful, but character dependent story seems really hard. Characters never go after what you plant for them.

I found, most recently, my party has had the best time just shopping in the city of brass.

Fiery Diamond
2012-06-21, 07:56 PM
It all depends on the game you're playing.
In Bliss Stage every character but 1 must "die" before the game is over. That manner of that death is entirely in the hands of the Player and can range from disintegration to permanent coma to fleeing your friends and allies and never returning. However, when the game says your character must die (and it will!) it is time to make your final scene.

In AD&D you could die from anything ranging from an assassin's dart to a fall off a horse. Even at "high" levels you were often one dice roll away from death. There were resurrection mechanics but they were typically out of reach of Players and, even then, often had the risk of Final Death or being returned as a squirrel. However, character creation was simple and advancing in level wasn't really the point of the game -- you gained some HP and some better saves but that was it. Since the journey was more important than the travelers it was OK to kill off characters now and then.

In 3rd Edition D&D death was random at low levels but increasingly rare as you went up. HP death became rare after your HP outpaced the crit damage of standard weapons and Save or Dies were mitigated by clever feat and class selection, not to mention purchases from the Magic Mart. Resurrection became easier and level progression became more important to the game -- every level was a chance to gain a new class or even a fancy Prestige Class! Losing all that work is frustrating to Players who want to try out all of those fancy options and making a new character becomes more complicated as the levels increase -- you can't just roll some dice and add a few numbers to show up as another Elven Magic-User by the side of the road. As a result, character death inconveniences everyone around, so it becomes relatively rarer.
IMHO, a DM tailors his style to the game he is running, or only selects games that conform to his style. It would be no better to kill off characters willy-nilly in a 3e game than it would be to save them in a game of Bliss Stage.

And, of course, you need to meet your Players' expectations. If your Players do not like it that you are or are not killing off their characters then you should adapt to suit their desires.


Critical hit, Mr. Hunter.

(I will add that it goes beyond just the rules, and into the type of experience the game is about - you could theoretically play a 3rd ed style game in 1e, or vice versa, but you'd be fighting the rules to some extent.)


In my experience, it depends heavily on what kind of story you (as DM) want to tell and whether your players have the same expectations. Talk to your players beforehand and make sure you want the same thing!

If your story is about a group of close friends or heroes marked by destiny, character death is probably something to avoid - have them taken prisoner, knocked unconscious and left for dead under rubble, or what have you. On the other hand, a game based on Greek epics (exactly how many of Odysseus's crew survived the journey home?) or a tense struggle for survival in a post-apocalyptic world crawling with zombies have character death as an integral part of the story, and players should be prepared for that.

I used to play with someone who routinely wrote five- or six-page backstories for each of her characters and actually cried when her character was swallowed by a dragon. It was all done by the rules, and was a suitably heroic death - she singlehandedly held it off while the rest of the party evacuated the village - but she was under the impression that her character was too important to the story to die. She left the game after that because I wouldn't retcon her death (and the campaign wasn't going to reach levels where True Rez was available). Lesson learned: talk these things out ahead of time. On the other end of the spectrum, I've had players who basically said "The story will be more interesting if I make this decision, even though I as a player know it's a bad idea. Can my character die in a way that furthers the story?" Both styles can make for a satisfying game if the players and the DM are on the same page.

(Character death can also be a maturity issue if your players are too young to accept the loss, so games for younger players should probably lean towards the former extreme)

These guys have said it best. My personal preferences are in line with those who dislike character death and especially dislike random character death. The story is about the characters and their actions in games I run, not about the world itself or about the players. Therefore, barring things like intentional heroic death, character death and a replacement character is jarring, since the characters are the ones in the spotlight, not the players, and there is a spotlight.

Rallicus
2012-06-21, 09:42 PM
It is not the DM's job to kill PCs.

A DM who boasts his PC death count is not a good DM.

A DM who doesn't feel he ran a good game unless a PC died or at least brought to negatives is not a good DM.

A DM who has a PC death rate to encounter/adventure arc ratio is not a good DM.

A DM who is proud he killed a PC is not a good DM.

Debatable.

DM stands for Dungeon Master, not Storyteller. If you were referring to STs pulling something like that then yeah, I wholeheartedly agree, but DMing is a broad term that encompasses a lot of different play styles. I wouldn't mind being in a game with a DM who actively tried to kill players, provided there wasn't a bunch of bs from anything other than the dice. A DM flaunting PC death would entice me to continue at this challenge until victory. And victory would be that much sweeter.

OP's question is an interesting one, though. Over the years, many tabletop games have changed into a story-based, interactive game among friends. Fudged dice, miracles, NPCs acting out of character to avoid PC death... all prevalent thanks to the change in gameplay. No doubt this came about due to wanting to develop one's character alongside the story, but at what cost?

So when do the gloves come off? I don't know, but I wish they'd come off more often in the games I play in. I've experienced several instances of fudged dice and bs in some games I've been playing, one in particular that should have outright decimated a fellow PC for playing like an idiot. But guess what? Suddenly the monster's 30 foot reach (which was established) didn't provoke any AoO against a character moving through three or four threatened squares.

Times like that frustrate me to no end. I don't know, I've sort of lost hope. Even I'm guilty of preventing PC death, because my players were sulking about essentially losing a "last stand" against an easily avoided foe (provided they played a little more intelligently), so I gave them an opportunity to "stabilize or die," and all of them succeeded because the dice felt like giving out miracles that day. Two of them managed to live on the very last possible roll.

Part of me feels like I should have just killed them off. Yeah, it wouldn't have been pretty. Yeah, it wouldn't have ended the story on a good note. And yeah, giving them a chance to stabilize while bleeding out sort of made sense as far as the NPC's decision went. But still, it showed the players that "roleplay" is a viable option in my games since I backed down from killing them legitimately, and I'm no longer sure I want to DM this way.

NikitaDarkstar
2012-06-22, 02:56 AM
As a player I'm not a huge fan of utterly random character death. As in death by one lousy dice roll in a random encounter, that just sucks. But if I as a player (or my character) does something really stupid? Yhea, I'll have to deal with the consequences. And an epic and heroic death? I can totally deal with that too.

But on the other hand, the one thing I don't want to notice is plot armor. I have a DM who's great with plots, interesting twists and a fun homebrew setting, but darn it he makes the plot armor painfully obvious at times. We still have fun and everything, but not even the illusion of maybe, possibly needing to make a sacrifice is there, even against BBEG's. I've played with him for somewhere around 5-6 years I think and never even had a character dropped to negative hit points. (Even worse now when we know each others style well enough to read each others minds.) And that's kind of nut fun either. I really wouldn't mind having a character killed while defending a city from a rampaging dragon or something, but the DM can't stomach killing characters.

Siegel
2012-06-22, 04:59 AM
Play Mouse Guard - it doesn't work with Gloves on

Aeryr
2012-06-22, 05:06 AM
I generally have an idea of what the players will do next, and I try to come up with difficult but survivable challenges for them on that path. If they decide they want to dragon hunting instead... that is where PC death starts to pile up.

And remember PCs if your party decides to go dragon hunting always get an escape plan.

Acanous
2012-06-22, 05:17 AM
I still tell my players to come prepped with three premade characters.

Just in case.

Even if I don't plan on anyone dying? It's ample warning, sets the theme, and if someone DOES die, it doesn't interrupt gameplay for long, as they have a spare sheet and all I need to do is work the char in.

Morph Bark
2012-06-22, 05:54 AM
You mean DMs are supposed to start with their gloves on? What is this madness?!

Zerter
2012-06-22, 06:18 AM
Rather then tell everyone what kind of DM I am or the group is, I want to do it the other way around. I am gonna describe character deaths in our party by DM (and how long each campaign lasted so you know what the ratio is) and someone tell me what kind of game we are running.

Sessions are tabletop and last for about 12 hours each.

DM A: 6 deaths in 15 sessions.
2 deaths were caused by the party challenging a Wizard trying to get away despite having received in-game warnings he was much too powerful and would kill members if provoked. He dropped a 10d6 fireball on the level 3 party causing two of the three members hit to die.

1 death was caused by a player failing to protect himself against a magic storm. He was given a letter in-game he failed to read properly (telling him to do so) and ignored hints he was in danger unless he would protect himself.

2 deaths were caused by two party members trying to kill a powerful Lizard. There were no hints dropped that he was pretty powerful, but it was an established NPC they had the option of negotiating with and they knew he could be powerful as the party was warned all monsters might be.

1 death was caused by the newly made dwarven PC killing the newly made goblin PC after the goblin PC sneaked up on him in two rounds after being introduced.

DM B: 13 deaths in 34 sessions.
1 death caused by PC sending another PC a letter containing a power word death. This was in an evil campaign where the PC in question was plotting against others.

1 death caused by a PC refusing to negotiate with an enemy he knew to be much stronger and dying in the resulting combat.

1 death caused by PC staying behind in hiding to challenge the spotted assasin, killed in a close 1-on-1 combat.

1 death caused by a PC getting crit in the air by a Llamia in a random encounter.

1 death caused by a PC unnecessarily killing a drow orphan and the rest of the party refusing to free him from captivity because of it.

1 death caused by a PC provoking another PC and that PC ordering his giant turtle pet to eat the provoking PC.

1 death caused by a failed magical experiment intended to obtain divine power (the PC in question knew it was a long-shot, another PC did succeed).

1 death caused by suicide after discovering he was in fact a clone from the PC he thought he was playing all along and not the real one.

1 death caused by a PC trying to backstab another PC in the middle of combat only to be killed himself.

1 death caused in random ecounter with a skindancer, the PC went into negatives and bled out while the battle continued.

1 death caused in heroic defense of own tribe against a invading githyanki force.

1 death caused by character first trying to rip off a vampire lord and failing, than getting captured by him, than lying to him while being captured and than by refusing to negate after being exposed a liar.

1 death caused by fail against poison for 3d6 constitution damage (the dice gods did not favor this one).

DM C: 5 deaths in 14 sessions.
1 death caused by character drinking potion labelled poison.

3 deaths caused by three level 5 PCs facing a CR 9 vampire in an arena fight.

1 death caused by PC dying of failing saves vs. poison after random encounter.

DM D: 2 deaths in 4 sessions
2 deaths in two random encounters

DM E: 7 deaths in 10 sessions.
1 death in random encounter

1 death caused by party letting the PC bleed dry after the PC tried to plot against them.

1 death caused by PC being betrayed by another PC because the PC betrayed was deemed to dangerous for the party by the betraying PC.

1 death caused by random encounter.

1 death caused in random encounter when the PC in question provoked an attack of opportunity to escape while at 1 HP (he had other options).

1 death caused when a PC tried to obtain a powerful magical item resulting in the rage of a powerful demon (he was warned in-game that it was not a good idea).

1 death caused in defense of the city against a powerful demon.

DM F: 2 deaths in 5 sessions.
1 death caused when PC tried unsuccessfully to assassinate powerful NPC, only to be hit in the back with an arrow while trying to escape by another PC.

1 death caused when PC tried to kill a powerful NPC in a combat that lasted 2 rounds.

DM G: 2 deaths in 12 sessions
1 death caused by PC jumping out of zeppelin with an experimental fly potion.

1 death caused by PC deciding to attack the band of giants, alone, instead of negotiating with them as planned.

Grail
2012-06-22, 07:19 AM
Gloves should never go on.

DM's aren't fighting against the characters, but neither should they protect them. Player Characters should live or die on their own merit.

If as a DM you wear gloves and treat your players too leniently, then they become bad players. They won't learn from their mistakes, they will think that it is appropriate and acceptable to take stupid, irresponsible and foolish risks and that they should be rewarded for them.

Also, without the threat of death, then characters can't be truly heroic. To be heroic, there needs to be risk. Taking away any risk robs a character of this right.

I have played in games where the DM's would be overly kind to characters, to the point that if someone died, then we happened to find a scroll of resurrection in the very next room, and that it could be used by anyone... yes, this actually happened. These games are utterly, utterly boring. It's like playing a PC game in god mode. Without tension there can be no drama.

I refuse to play in these kinds of games, and will not run them.

I kill characters. I'm proud of it. But I don't go out of my way to kill characters. Good players (and that doesn't mean that they are meta gaming munchkins, just that they play sensibly and learn from their mistakes), will have their characters survive from beginning to end in my games. Bad players will go through multiple characters.

When I ran Red Hand of Doom for one of my PnP groups, there were maybe 10+ character deaths. These deaths all belonged to only a couple of the players. They litterally just did stupid act after stupid act and wondered why they died. The other players had their characters survive the entire campaign.

Example of stupid act in RHoD.

The party was attacking a fort that had been captured by the Red Hand. During the assault, the Arcane Trickster turned invisible and started scouting out the rest of the structure behind the keep. He did this in the middle of a major fight with the rest of the characters and a concerted defensive effort.

He came across a Red Hand Sorcerer and a Bugbear barbarian (his bodyguard), fleeing the scene. Instead of retreating to try and alert his allies that the enemy officer was leaving the battle, he tried to attack them himself. He used a ray attack (I think it was scorching ray) + Sneak Attack, against the barbarian. He did about 1/2 HP damage to the Barbarian, but became visible, alone and isolated against 2 powerful enemies.

End result, dead. Sorcerer hit him with a lightning bolt, barbarian charged him and cut him down.

The rest of the players couldn't believe his actions. He was to blame for his character death. He as a player shouldn't be rewarded for stupid actions. I didn't fudge dice, he died fairly, but he died because of actions that he took.

This player now has actually improved considerably in the past couple years and I doubt whether he'd pull something as dumb as that again. He learnt and thus was able to evolve as a player.

Jack of Spades
2012-06-22, 07:47 AM
As a player, one of my first thoughts when I have a character concept set in my head is along the lines of "So, how does this guy die?" I generally try to figure out what would be a death he would be happy with, what kind of death I would be happy with, et cetera. However, I have a very forgiving DM/ST who will generally keep a character alive as long as it doesn't kill itself through stupidity or ineptitude. Even with other peoples' games though, I tend to see the death of a given character coming a mile away, and when I do I take it smiling. It was just a character after all, and his death allows me to a) make sure he goes out in a blaze of ridiculous glory and/or b) start fiddling around with new character concepts. But that's just me.

Thialfi
2012-06-22, 08:05 AM
Characters die in our campaign all the time. As a DM, I feel it is my job to balance the threat of death for PCs with the realization that the game is supposed to be fun and killing a player's characters is usually not fun for them.

The game is no fun if there isn't a challenge, so you should never be afraid to off a character if the flow of the story demands it. However, I am always looking for ways to reasonably save the character's lives.

We play a 1e/2e campaign and use bandage rules that allow a character to live up to -10 hit points. What I would have done in your example was to fight out that battle. Once both characters went down, I would have had the orc leader order that the characters be bandaged if possible and taken captive with the idea that they be sold into slavery. It would be the duty of the rest of the party to check on the characters and effect a rescue. If the dice were not kind and the character died instead of being bandaged, so be it.

Tyndmyr
2012-06-22, 08:10 AM
depends on the game, but for the most part, as a GM i try to challenge the players, not kill them.

as a GM, "... then they all died" is the worst possible outcome i believe i can have since it generally leads nowhere. i have no problem having the PCs lose, but losing still moves the game forward as i give them plenty of outs.

Sometimes stories need to end. Victories may be more popular than tragedies, but both outcomes are legitimate.

Thialfi
2012-06-22, 09:36 AM
Sometimes stories need to end. Victories may be more popular than tragedies, but both outcomes are legitimate.


I don't understand this line of thinking. Sure stories end, but characters don't have to. They can live to go on to another story. As a DM, I feel I have failed to provide an enjoyable experience if the party wipes, because I know if my character dies when I am playing, it really hurts my ability to take pleasure in that gaming session. I would be very upset as a player if a DM crafted his story with the idea that all the characters would die some kind of heroes death in the end.

This may be affected by the fact that we have had one continuous campaign for 32 years and no one (outside of Dark Sun where they start at 3rd) has ever rolled up a character that was higher than 1st level.

Empedocles
2012-06-22, 09:41 AM
The way I handle it, I only will spare the players if I realize the challenge was much harder then I intended it to be. During one adventure, I rolled for random encounters, and an earth elemental popped up, at a -1 CR from the party's ECL. Two of four characters were killed...:smallmad: Since then, I've been more lenient about when small encounters get people killed.

That being said, in anything CR +2 or a major encounter in the campaign (a milestone) I play as hard and as trickily (though not cheesily) as I can to kill players. I've never pulled a "oh! lucky for you a war horn is sounding!" If there's a TPK, we make a new party and try to tie it in to the old adventure. For example, a band of goblins murdered 3 of my 4 PCs. The last PC was a paladin, who spared the goblin's warleader (a marshal). One of my players took over the marshal, and we continued playing (the other players either took control of NPCs or rolled up new characters).

willpell
2012-06-22, 10:12 AM
Until DM intervention. He scared away the orcs with unimportant story to save our skins. He made the vision crumble away with his saving hands, and still today I want to roll those dice, and watch as Geoffrey and Beth are over run by savages.

I get what you're saying; in a novel a scene like that would be great, and maybe for you it even works when you're in the main character seat. If the DM paused the action and asked the player whether he wanted a DXM or not, that would be ideal, but in general I think it's safer for him to assume that you'd rather be a little disappointed that you didn't heroically die, than risk that you'd be utterly crushed by the loss of a beloved character. Maybe our society has gone too soft, but I don't think so; I think softness is good. I'd have been put off roleplaying forever if my third game had been a Tomb of Horrors delve where I ended up Annihilated with no save; it might be a little embarassing to still have training wheels on your proverbial bike well into teenage, but it seems more responsible for a "parent" to do that, rather than be encouraging and supportive in your desire to do extreme stunts on a motorcycle with no helmet, no matter how cool it would look or how good the adrenaline rush.

Morph Bark
2012-06-22, 11:08 AM
Sometimes stories need to end. Victories may be more popular than tragedies, but both outcomes are legitimate.

Yet, on the other hand, its more often the tragedies that become stories told generations later.

While people often seem to prefer a story with a positive outcome, a negative outcome draws a stronger reaction. A good story can have either outcome.

kyoryu
2012-06-22, 11:11 AM
Yet, on the other hand, its more often the tragedies that become stories told generations later.

While people often seem to prefer a story with a positive outcome, a negative outcome draws a stronger reaction. A good story can have either outcome.

In a blog post somewhere, Jim Butcher talked about stories as a series of questions. "Oh, no, our hero is trapped in a pit! Does he get out?"

Yes is a boring answer.

No is a boring answer.

Yes, but... is an interesting answer.

willpell
2012-06-22, 11:17 AM
While people often seem to prefer a story with a positive outcome, a negative outcome draws a stronger reaction. A good story can have either outcome.

I'm just going to paraphrase real quick here....

"While people often seem to prefer a quality poster, a troll draws a stronger reaction. A good thread can feature either."

I'm not sure what my own point here is exactly, but I'm fairly confident I'm making one.

Wyntonian
2012-06-22, 11:17 AM
I guess it comes from a thing that happened to me.

orcs had ambushed our wagon, we didn't stand a chance. Everyone grabbed a horse and raced for the forest. I went last. On the escape, the fighter was thrown from her horse. Racing to save her, I lowered my hand and tried to swing her up to my horse. She made the strength check. I failed the ride check. We looked at each other, Drew our weapons and stood back to back, facing down the hoard so that our companions could go free. It was the most stoic I ever felt. Back to back with a champion, facing down a raging hoard of orcs. Sure we would die, but some of them would too, and it was going to be a story for the ages...

Until DM intervention. He scared away the orcs with unimportant story to save our skins. He made the vision crumble away with his saving hands, and still today I want to roll those dice, and watch as Geoffrey and Beth are over run by savages.

So, maybe I'm a relic, and my players are perverse, but character death is a fabulous tool.

What say ye?

I think that what you like about this was not that your character died, but that they did it in a cool way. See, this is the kind of scenario where character death is a perfectly valid tool, and probably the most powerful one in the DM's box.

On the other hand, what if a goblin had wandered over when you're sleeping, cut all your throats and taken your stuff? You died, didn't you? But you didn't accomplish your goal of being a heroic badass like your given (awesome) scenario did, so it wouldn't be near as fun.

When I choose not to kill my players, it's not because I don't want them to die, period. It's because death is the kinda thing that can should only be used once, and I don't want to waste that powerful opportunity on a CR1 goblin when it can be used on the epic villain, or doing something equally awesome.

willpell
2012-06-22, 11:19 AM
When I choose not to kill my players, it's not because I don't want them to die, period. It's because death is the kinda thing that can should only be used once.

Someone really needs to explain this to the editors of DC and Marvel comics....

oxybe
2012-06-22, 11:49 AM
Sometimes stories need to end. Victories may be more popular than tragedies, but both outcomes are legitimate.

i would much rather the story end because the all authors deem it a fitting end then one guy going "AND THEN THE ORCS MURDERED THEM ALL. THE END." with everyone else sitting there bewildered.

when i GM, it isn't "my story". it's "our story", one the entire group tells together, everyone playing different parts at different time.

the PCs are the protagonists and the GM alternates between antagonists and secondary/tertiary characters as well as the scene itself, but it's up to everyone to make the game interesting.

to have one guy go "GOOD GAME GUYS" and disrupt the whole party by killing everyone in an unceremonious fashion, it's simply bad form IMO, be he player or GM.

stories end, yes, but i don't remember reading Lord of the Rings and seeing "and then, after leaving the inn, Aragorn, Frodo, Samwise, Merry & Pippin got murdered by Ringwraiths." and the rest of the book are just the "buddy cop"-esque adventures of Legolas and Gimli who now have no goal in life until the ring goes to Sauron's and it's described how he turns the world into a rather dreary place.

Draz74
2012-06-22, 12:02 PM
When I DM, I basically shift back and forth between "gloves" and "hard knocks" depending on my instincts for how the players would feel about a character death. If they're new to gaming and a death might discourage them a lot about playing in general, I try to have gloves on -- I've ended two major battles that could have gone either way by deciding that the monsters had a healthy self-preservation instinct and retreated once they realized they might get killed. (I don't know whether this is a good practice, but I'm ok with it for now -- as long as the new players realize that they were close to losing and dying, I feel like it still gives them an appreciation for the dangers of adventuring.) Likewise, if they're not new, but they're very attached to their character's ongoing story and excited to e.g. complete a quest that's a major goal for their character in the future, I'll try to wear gloves.

On the other hand, if the story's drama dictates a heroic sacrificial death, I'll play "hard knocks." Or if experienced gamers have become too cocky about surviving, and they need a reminder that adventuring is a dangerous business, I'll switch to "hard knocks" mode. Especially if they make dumb decisions, and especially if the character isn't one that will be missed in the long run.

In practice, this inconsistent style tends to favor characters who have more work put into their personality and backstory and motivations. They end up essentially having some "plot armor." IMO, that's ok -- as long as the players don't realize consciously that backstory = plot armor and start using it as a form of powergaming.


In a blog post somewhere, Jim Butcher talked about stories as a series of questions. "Oh, no, our hero is trapped in a pit! Does he get out?"

Yes is a boring answer.

No is a boring answer.

Yes, but... is an interesting answer.

That's ... very true. Hmmm. I need to work on coming up with complications like that more often.

kyoryu
2012-06-22, 12:32 PM
i would much rather the story end because the all authors deem it a fitting end then one guy going "AND THEN THE ORCS MURDERED THEM ALL. THE END." with everyone else sitting there bewildered.

when i GM, it isn't "my story". it's "our story", one the entire group tells together, everyone playing different parts at different time.


This makes a strong presumption that the goal of an RPG is to "tell a story." That is not a presumption that holds true for all cases. Certainly whether "telling a story" is a goal or not should inform whether or not the gloves come off, and when.



In practice, this inconsistent style tends to favor characters who have more work put into their personality and backstory and motivations. They end up essentially having some "plot armor." IMO, that's ok -- as long as the players don't realize consciously that backstory = plot armor and start using it as a form of powergaming.

Actually, I think it shows an impedance mismatch when using D&D (any edition) as a narrative-styled game. You *can* do it, of course, but there's places where the system actively conspires against you.

Sudain
2012-06-22, 12:33 PM
That's ... very true. Hmmm. I need to work on coming up with complications like that more often.

Check out Pyrrhic victories(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyrrhic_victory). :)

oxybe
2012-06-22, 12:37 PM
i would imagine the goal of an RPG is to tell a shared story/experience, otherwise what the heck are you rolling dice and sitting around a table for?

kyoryu
2012-06-22, 12:44 PM
i would imagine the goal of an RPG is to tell a shared story/experience, otherwise what the heck are you rolling dice and sitting around a table for?

To play a game about dungeon exploration, maybe?

That may not be why *you* play RPGs, of course, and I'm not saying it should be. There are people that play for that reason, and in that case, taking the gloves off makes a lot more sense.

jaybird
2012-06-22, 01:14 PM
The gloves are never on. That doesn't mean I'm out to kill my players, though, just that they can expect tough situations where they won't always be in control. Of course, given that I'm running 40kRP, that might be considered "gloves on"...:smallamused:

willpell
2012-06-22, 01:20 PM
To play a game about dungeon exploration, maybe?

Such games certainly exist - Dungeonscape remains my classic favorite, Thunderstone is a neat modern take, and of course there's Talisman. You know what all of those have that D&D doesn't? Pre-made characters.

Now, with 3.x there's a lot of "pathing" which pushes you somewhat toward a prebuild, but there's still tons of room for optomizing. There wouldn't be 40 or so different Skills for you to buy ranks in if those ranks weren't meant to say something about which of the {Blah}'s set of talents your {Blah} has chosen to specialize in. You don't have to have a backstory which explains why you have 4 ranks in Hide and only 3 in Move Silently or vice versa, but it helps.

Ultimately, involved character building and customization and backstory gives you a sense of ownership which keeps you invested in the game. A game like Dungeonscape can succeed without that sense, but it's less likely that it'll get its hooks into you so deep - after all, Rildo the Crafty was just sitting there in the box when you picked him up, he wasn't your baby that you worked on for a solid hour before ever stepping into the castle to face deadly peril in search of treasure. There are advantages to both but ultimately the nigh-addictive nature of the customization-heavy modern style makes a better sales driver I suspect (or at least impresses advertisers with the obsessive amount of traffic on your website). Very few people get that deeply and desperately "into" a pick-up-and-play game like Dungeonscape, and so it doesn't dominate their life and commandeer their disposable income as easily. But all this is just a theory of course.

Sudain
2012-06-22, 01:22 PM
One of the things I like doing is throwing an interactive mechanic into battles. If they are on a ship every other round will result in a swell that causes a DC 15 balance check. If you fail you can't move. Fail by 5 or more and you fall prone.

Give the baddies an immunity to this and you've got a very interesting and fun fight. Also ends up in deaths, but FUN deaths even for random encounters.

oxybe
2012-06-22, 01:30 PM
To play a game about dungeon exploration, maybe?

That may not be why *you* play RPGs, of course, and I'm not saying it should be. There are people that play for that reason, and in that case, taking the gloves off makes a lot more sense.

if you want to tell the story of a group of people going off into a dungeon to kill monsters, then it's fine.

if all you want to do is play a break & enter/monster-genocide simulator with little role-play i'd hardly recommend an RPG for that. maybe a boardgame like Heroquest or Wrath of Ashardalon if you want a fantasy feel or the Doom boardgame if you want a sci-fi dungeoncrawl.

Dire Panda
2012-06-22, 01:40 PM
Telling a story doesn't mean it will end well for the protagonists. Even if it ends in TPK, there's always some other band of would-be heroes out there for the game to focus on. A good DM will make their story flow from the defeat of the original heroes, or at least connect the two somehow. Maybe your party ended up as dragon chow, but the village they protected had time to evacuate and their children were raised on tales of the heroes who saved them... and in turn grew up to be the next generation of adventurers.

An example from my undergrad days: our party had just acquired a plot McGuffin and was desperate to reach a certain city to foil the BBEG's plans in time. We elected to sneak past a hostile storm giant's cave rather than take the long way around. One botched Move Silently check later, a horrible attempt at a Bluff, and we were stuck in a practically unwinnable fight. The last survivor tried to flee and was cut down by her lightning. That campaign ended on a rather sour note: "Well, I suppose she eats well for a while. Without your party, there is no one in the realm willing or able to face Lord [name I honestly can't recall] before his ritual is complete."

That could have been the end of it right there, but as the DM said, every bard song that ends with the hero riding off into the sunset must eventually have an ending like this - they just left it out because it was less interesting than the rest of the tale. Ever adventurer skeleton you loot once had a heroic story behind him.

So we rolled up new characters and started what appeared to be an unrelated tale in a distant corner of the world. Six months later the new party travels far and wide, climbs out of the Underdark into a cave containing a storm giant, takes her by surprise, and wins the ensuing battle. We only had half of the original players by this point, so as the DM handed out treasures it took us a while to realize that these were the belongings of the previous party! Until our rogue found the plot McGuffin, the new players didn't understand the shocked looks we were giving each other. Anyway, as it turned out, the previous campaign's villain was now the unchallenged king of the continent and was still searching for the one artifact that could kill him. The fact that it ended up in the giant's lair had kept it safe for all these years, since she ate any scouts that looked for it in her territory. When the new group used it to overthrow King Mainvillain (I told you I can't remember his name), we realized that the heroes of the last campaign had won after all - without their seemingly pointless deaths, he'd have ended up with the artifact and all hope would be lost.

Short version: a skilled DM can turn even an unexpected TPK into a satisfying story.

Tyndmyr
2012-06-22, 02:10 PM
i would much rather the story end because the all authors deem it a fitting end then one guy going "AND THEN THE ORCS MURDERED THEM ALL. THE END." with everyone else sitting there bewildered.

when i GM, it isn't "my story". it's "our story", one the entire group tells together, everyone playing different parts at different time.

the PCs are the protagonists and the GM alternates between antagonists and secondary/tertiary characters as well as the scene itself, but it's up to everyone to make the game interesting.

to have one guy go "GOOD GAME GUYS" and disrupt the whole party by killing everyone in an unceremonious fashion, it's simply bad form IMO, be he player or GM.

stories end, yes, but i don't remember reading Lord of the Rings and seeing "and then, after leaving the inn, Aragorn, Frodo, Samwise, Merry & Pippin got murdered by Ringwraiths." and the rest of the book are just the "buddy cop"-esque adventures of Legolas and Gimli who now have no goal in life until the ring goes to Sauron's and it's described how he turns the world into a rather dreary place.

Well, when they chose to stand and fight rather than run...they made their decision.

Vladislav
2012-06-22, 02:16 PM
One botched Move Silently check later, a horrible attempt at a Bluff ...I can totally see it:

PC #1: Meow!
PC #2: Meow!
PC #3: I'm a cat, just like the other two!

Eurus
2012-06-22, 02:21 PM
I hate killing PCs, but on the other hand, the threat of killing PCs is what keeps things interesting. And if it's not a legitimate threat, they'll figure it out sooner or later, and then the tension and drama is gone. Random unlucky death (and even TPK) has to be a possibility, I feel, because that's what makes victory so much sweeter. So yeah, "as close as possible to killing while keeping actual deaths rare" is my ideal.

navar100
2012-06-22, 02:24 PM
One of the things I like doing is throwing an interactive mechanic into battles. If they are on a ship every other round will result in a swell that causes a DC 15 balance check. If you fail you can't move. Fail by 5 or more and you fall prone.

Give the baddies an immunity to this and you've got a very frustrating and unfair fight. Also ends up in deaths, but DM hates his players deaths for random encounters.

Alternatively . . .

Draz74
2012-06-22, 02:27 PM
To play a game about dungeon exploration, maybe?

That may not be why *you* play RPGs, of course, and I'm not saying it should be. There are people that play for that reason, and in that case, taking the gloves off makes a lot more sense.

RPGs that are about kick-in-the-door dungeon exploration all along are fine. But personally, I get bored of them after a while. There's a reason I've never committed time to playing HeroQuest, and why my fan-dom for Munchkin died out relatively quickly.

RPGs that are about "telling a story" all along are fine too. But I've never had a playgroup that was consistent enough and well-prepared enough to play that way from the get-go.

The thing I love about D&D is that it can straddle the fence. It can start as a simple dungeon crawl, then, gradually, as the players become more attached to their characters and dare to start making more surprising choices, it can grow into being a real story. That gradual progression is, to me, the "classic" form that an ideal D&D campaign should take. And if the group is consistent enough and has some creative storytellers in it, that's where D&D will take them -- just look at the SilverClawShift stories.

So my "gloves-off/hard knocks" hybrid style is intended to be able to adapt as the story changes along that progression.

Sudain
2012-06-22, 02:51 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sudain

One of the things I like doing is throwing an interactive mechanic into battles. If they are on a ship every other round will result in a swell that causes a DC 15 balance check. If you fail you can't move. Fail by 5 or more and you fall prone.

Give the baddies an immunity to this and you've got a very frustrating and unfair fight. Also ends up in deaths, but DM hates his players deaths for random encounters.
Alternatively . . .

I'm sorry, operating under the idea that the PCs are supposed to wipe out most of the things they choose to fight does not seem prescribe to 'fair'. If the odds are heavily stacked in favor of the PCs, evening the playing field by tossing baddies an advantage every now and then makes it closer to 'fairer'.

Also, i don't know of any rule that prevents people from fighting or casting while prone. Not great but not illegal. Nor any rule preventing from using something like a rope, crate or other secure object to gain a bonus to balance checks.

lunar2
2012-06-22, 03:18 PM
my first "real" character (a Chaotic Good VOP cleric) died at level 4, after being played for just 1 session. the halfling rogue slipped and fell into the crocodile infested moat (DM's fault, he didn't mark the edge of the moat as slippery or difficult terrain, and then he called for a balance check to avoid falling). the rogue was barely even able to keep his head above water, much less climb out, because of no ranks in swim and very poor strength (being a finesse based rogue). So, of course the CG cleric who has already established that he doesn't think things through just had to jump in with a dagger to save the rogue, and i almost pulled it off, too.

out of that whole encounter, the only character to survive was my cleric's pet cockatrice, Rooster. He went on to have adventures with the next set of characters (becoming the pet of my new cleric, and favorite character so far), and had either appeared or been mentioned in every campaign that DM ran since then.

Totally Guy
2012-06-22, 03:24 PM
Best session I ever played was one in which everybody lost.

Hiro Protagonest
2012-06-22, 03:57 PM
I'm sorry, operating under the idea that the PCs are supposed to wipe out most of the things they choose to fight does not seem prescribe to 'fair'. If the odds are heavily stacked in favor of the PCs, evening the playing field by tossing baddies an advantage every now and then makes it closer to 'fairer'.

Also, i don't know of any rule that prevents people from fighting or casting while prone. Not great but not illegal. Nor any rule preventing from using something like a rope, crate or other secure object to gain a bonus to balance checks.

Then give me a good reason why the baddies are immune to the swells. Not even with a reduced DC, like 10, flat-out immune. I could see it IF you gave them both a DC 10 and figured out how to LEGALLY get them +9 to balance checks, but otherwise? Giving a straight-up advantage to a throwaway monster you rolled on a table without increasing the encounter's EL (as described in the DMG) is unfair.

Fighting from prone has penalties unless you took a feat from Complete Warrior.

Now as for the "there are no rules saying that using a crate doesn't give you a bonus on balance checks!", that's like saying "there are no rules saying that if I aim for the heart, my crits don't become instant kills!". Lucky for you, there ARE rules. In the DMG (or at leas the 3.0 one), it say "DMs may provide a +2 circumstantial bonus to skill checks for clever use of stuff", or something like that.

Vladislav
2012-06-22, 04:06 PM
Making a Balance check already assumes the character is doing his best to stay on his feet. Including grabbing on to crates, if necessary. That's what a Balance check means. "Did he grab on to a crate or not?"

In a place where there are a lot of ropes, crates or whatnot to grab on to, you can simply lower the Balance DC from 10 to 8 or 5 or whatnot.


IF you gave them both a DC 10 and figured out how to LEGALLY get them +9 to balance checks, but otherwise?
Homebrewed ACF that replaces ... I don't know, Trap Sense, and allows taking 10 on Balance checks. There you go.

CET
2012-06-22, 04:19 PM
Thoughts/Questions:

1) Why do people get so worked up over the whole PC death thing? I can't think of another issue that sparks the same amount of 'you're doing it wrong!' on the forums . . .

2) I agree with a couple of the previous posts that the OP's example is a perfect illustration of clumsy plot armor. Railroading the PCs to the uber-win is still railroading. There are plenty of ways that this could have been handled that would have made the 'last stand' choice meaningful, without killing the PCs. Going down swinging and then waking up tied to a tree near the enemy cookpot comes to mind, or maybe the PCs get used as hostages to force a ransom from the rest of the party (give us all your shiny weapons!).

3) A couple of folks have mentioned the 'illusion of danger' danger or 'clobber the PCs to within an inch of their lives' approach. I go back and forth on that. I find it more fun than impervious plot armor or the weekly TPK, but I've played games where that was clearly the GMs goal, and it still came off as a denial of player agency: "Doesn't matter what you do, I'm still going to make sure you get smacked around X much but no more." Not saying it has to be that way, but I think it requires a fair amount of subtlety to pull off.

4) As far as personal preferences and hypocrisy go, when I'm running, I like for it to look like I have the kid gloves off. I think rolling where the PCs can see is a big part of that. As is being upfront that I don't run linear games and don't really believe in making it so that every encounter can be defeated in a head-on fight. I don't make anything that's unbeatable, but being outgunned encourages players to think beyond 'kick in door, kill monster, take loot.'

Having said that, I loathe accidental PC death. I prefer interpreting a mechanical result of 'random death' as 'you really got the sh*t kicked out of you, probably lost all of your stuff, maybe took some permanent ability score damage, and are in a world of plot-hurt now that you're awake.' It still sucks, but you don't lose the PCs plot threads (though they may lose at their goals!) or have to integrate 'Jim's 3rd fighter' into the party.

Sudain
2012-06-22, 04:37 PM
For creatures that live, raid and die on the seas, they would of course sink ranks in to balance so they would negate the disadvantage native to their battlefields. And they would practice it rigorously so they do it subconsciously, because if they don't... they will have died long before they PCs get a chance to see them.

And yes, trading ACFs would be another option.

I don't assume the PCs are doing their best to stay on their feet while in combat. Ever try to swing a sword while on a surf board? I've found they are two very different ways for your body, and weight to move. If the PCs actively try to negate the penalty then I'm happy to hand out +2s, and +4s, so the penalty is negligible.

*Easy* mods to get:
+2 use one hand to steady self with a rope
+4 secure self with a rope
+4 Use a crate or other secure object
+2 Have someone call out when the swells are about to hit(so the party can brace before they hit)
+4 or 6 Have someone turn the boat so the swells don't hit the ship as hard

Yes, there are penalties(hence, not ideal); but they can still manage if they choose to ignore the swells.

If the PCs notice a trend of encounters that invovle skills like balance they might be advised to actually deviate from their perfect build(gasp!) to account for them. Or maybe get an item that'll do it for them.

Unfair? Only if the PCs don't bother to do anything about it. Interesting? A hell of a lot more interesting than fighting pirates on perfectly calm seas in sunny weather. Beatable Challenges are interesting and interesting leads to fun. And fun is why we bother to do this hobby at all, right?

SowZ
2012-06-22, 04:45 PM
I have one player who, even years later, still sometimes says. "Hey, remember that one time-" And recounts the story of one character of his death in a game I ran. The PCs were assassins in a sci fi game and the player in question had awesome strength. The group encountered their target but in an empty warehouse with guards around them with heavy M60 style guns.

The target was trying to convince the party to join his rival assassins guild and some of them were listening. This player shook the targets hand, (awesome sleight of hand skill,) but also poisoned him with tranquilizer darts. He proceeded to tackle him to the ground and break his neck. His last act was a double middle finger to the guards who proceeded to do that animation in fallout 2 when you were overkilled by a machine gun.

http://oyster.ignimgs.com/planets/images/00/05/506_BloodyMess.gif

He usually plays in games where PC death is expected not to happen and the DM will subvert it, but he LOVED it and it is a story he enjoys telling. I am glad to have given it to him. I can count nearly a dozen deaths made as a direct result of very poor decisions, and a couple of those were made for roleplaying reasons knowing death would be the outcome. There are only a couple deaths that just happened because of the combat/dice, and the most flagrant of those I allowed a revive, (whereas I typically don't.)

I have a pretty high kill count, (a player death every third or fourth session, on average.) Why does this make me a bad DM? I am neither encouraged or discouraged by player death but I want an organic world and I want the results to be based on the natural outcomes of choices made with some random element that combat has. I don't want it all to be based on what I plan and decide the outcome should be. That makes it feel synthetic, to me.

And yeah, if the players aren't taking damage and occasionally going negative or at least close to it, I will up the challenge. If I went eight sessions or so without a death, either the players are making remarkably smart decisions compared to the norm, (in which case I wouldn't mess with it,) or the combats and challenges probably haven't been intense enough in which case I feel fine to up the challenge. If they continue to survive, I won't be at all disappointed. But I expect a death or two in a given campaign though I don't try and directly cause them.

Shoot, I remember once the players were in a tower with 20-30 elves, surrounded by 300 human draftees getting ready to kill them. All but two players fled. The two that stayed I figured were gonners but I was going to give them an epic death so we played out the battle. Their tactics and rolls and use of resources was very good, though, and they barely survived. I was pleased with this outcome because the odds truly were against them. I was not sugarcoating anything. And for that reason, they felt more accomplished than I think they ever would in a game where the DM never kills people.

I will always follow the dice and the rules except where house rules were established. The closest I came to saving a player was when I rolled three twenties in a row and I didn't count the third one because it just landed on the twenty like it was dropped, (it didn't roll at all.) I encourage cleverness and have given as much as 10d12 damage for good use of the environment, (collapsing a tower on a rumored invulnerable skeleton,) and encouraging good tactics and smart playing allows the party to face things leagues above them in CR. Sometimes this leads to death, too, it just depends.

NichG
2012-06-22, 04:46 PM
Then give me a good reason why the baddies are immune to the swells. Not even with a reduced DC, like 10, flat-out immune. I could see it IF you gave them both a DC 10 and figured out how to LEGALLY get them +9 to balance checks, but otherwise? Giving a straight-up advantage to a throwaway monster you rolled on a table without increasing the encounter's EL (as described in the DMG) is unfair.


They're flying. Or incorporeal. Or they're a sea monster in the water. Plenty of ways to give the baddies immunity to a particular environmental condition.

navar100
2012-06-22, 06:25 PM
I'm sorry, operating under the idea that the PCs are supposed to wipe out most of the things they choose to fight does not seem prescribe to 'fair'. If the odds are heavily stacked in favor of the PCs, evening the playing field by tossing baddies an advantage every now and then makes it closer to 'fairer'.

Also, i don't know of any rule that prevents people from fighting or casting while prone. Not great but not illegal. Nor any rule preventing from using something like a rope, crate or other secure object to gain a bonus to balance checks.

You described it as FUN, all caps, that there would be deaths, to emphasize it as something to look forward to. When the DM looks forward to PC deaths, someone else needs to be in the chair.

Sudain
2012-06-22, 06:54 PM
Yes, it's fun for the players to overcome a challenge and kill the baddies on their own turf. It's also fun for players to die in the process. Fun because they know how the decks' stack against them, and they get to see exactly how much ass they really can kick before they kick the bucket. Interesting and glorious; and that leads fun - regardless of the outcome. You are assuming I go out of my way to set up impossible situations - that's not true. I would suggest you go back and re-read with an open mind.

If you want to play a game where there is no challenge or risk; that is totally okay. Just don't expect it to memorable.

http://www.motifake.com/facebookview.php?id=23872

navar100
2012-06-22, 07:47 PM
It's not an either/or. Not liking unfairly stacking the deck against the players wanting their characters to die does not equate to wanting hand-holding them across the dungeon and fluffing their pillows. When the DM sees the players as his opponent, the game is over.

Slipperychicken
2012-06-23, 01:20 AM
As a player, I enjoy the idea that my character might actually die each time he fights. I'm fine with character death, if it's done fairly (everyone follows the rules, no on-the-spot-houserule bull****, no Boomboxes, no auto-win buttons). I will take a fair death as a learning experience (and build/play future characters accordingly), and an unfair death as the mark of a bad GM.

If you tell everyone the only planes are the Material and Ethereal, and that dimensional travel is impossible, then no-save/no-SR transport everyone to a Far Realms-ripoff plane which arbitrarily strips them of their buffs and negates all their defenses other than hp and AC, then proceed to wail on my Wizards' puny d4s and AC 14 until he dies? I will curse at you for wasting my time, quit the game, then rant about the incident on forums for months thereafter.

If my character charged into the middle of 7+ enemies far away from the party? Yes, he richly deserved to die, and I am willing to accept this as a learning experience. I will feel bad, but mostly for my own perceived inadequacy as a tactician and/or optimizer, and will work to improve both fronts as a result.


"Short" Version: If you don't cheat to do it, and there was some likelihood of the PCs actions averting or preventing it, that kind of character death is a reasonable and expected part of the game. If you cheat, lie, straight-up break the rules, and throw wildly inappropriate challenges without hope of escape, victory, or survival, it is neither reasonable nor excusable.

Grail
2012-06-23, 02:05 AM
It also depends upon the campaign. I have run a SLA Industries campaign previously, that was 5 mini campaigns rolled into 1. Campaign 1 and 5 used the same characters, but 2,3,4 used different characters from different factions. Campaigns 2 - 5 all ended deliberately with character deaths. Especially campaign 5, where the final session of the game saw all the remaining characters executed for sedition.

The players who played in this game really liked it, and 8 years on they still talk about it. If I were to run SLA again, they'd be jumping out of their skin to play it.

kyoryu
2012-06-23, 02:24 AM
It really does depend on the game you're playing.

If you're playing "Look What Cool Things I Accomplished," then the possibility of character death is a necessity, otherwise it's like a soccer tournament where every team wins and everyone gets an MVP - the accomplishment means nothing.

If you're playing "Look What Cool Things I Made," then character death is just smashing the cool things on the ground, making the whole exercise pointless.

willpell
2012-06-23, 02:28 AM
It really does depend on the game you're playing.

If you're playing "Look What Cool Things I Accomplished," then the possibility of character death is a necessity, otherwise it's like a soccer tournament where every team wins and everyone gets an MVP - the accomplishment means nothing.

If you're playing "Look What Cool Things I Made," then character death is just smashing the cool things on the ground, making the whole exercise pointless.

Pretty much this. I don't think accomplishing cool things is impossible without risk of death, or even risk of failure (risk of lesser degree of success might be enough), but there's definitely some tendency for danger to raise the stakes and thus increase the meaningfulness of a victory. Some of the difficulty of an accomplishment can just come from it being complex and involved, and/or nobody having ever thought to try it before. But it being difficult also helps a lot.

Acanous
2012-06-23, 04:58 AM
There is a scale of Reality VS Heroism, and Cold, uncaring universe VS Benevolent creator.

If you're in a "You suck unless you're skilled, lucky, and ruthless" kind of realism setting, with a cold, uncaring universe, you're going to NEED those three character sheets. If you're a Hero in the same place, you might need two, and if it's ever a game run by a Benevolent Creator, you're only going to need the new sheets when the old character is put on a bus.

You gotta ballpark what kind of game your players want.

Autolykos
2012-06-23, 04:23 PM
When I started DMing (Shadowrun), I wouldn't send them against anything they couldn't handle and only kill characters for really stupid stunts. Which wasn't that rare, actually - they pulled a few on me that would've been worthy of the CLUE Files (http://www.highprogrammer.com/alan/gaming/shadowrun/clue-files.html).
Then I relaxed that a little, and had anything big and motivated enough retaliate in full force when provoked. Which led (among others) to that incident with the Power 16 Great Form Blood Spirit. Fun times.
With time, the group got older and wiser, cutting down on stupid stunts, which allowed me to take (most of) the safeties off without ending every second session in a TPK. My current position is that they should be able to get the job done with proper planning and not incredibly bad luck, but running in through the front door guns blazing *will* usually get them killed. If they fail (or when I deliberately set them up to fail), I'll let them get away if they realize it soon enough and apply the 36th stratagem. If they continue to fight in a hopeless position, they'll get slaughtered or captured (which means pretty much the same in Shadowrun).
I also have the policy of not hunting down fleeing characters too hard if they don't have anything the pursuers want, and not having the NPCs shooting downed characters again "just to be sure" (unless the PCs made it personal). This keeps survivability surprisingly high, even for a system as deadly as Shadowrun.
In GURPS, this will all but eliminate PC deaths as long as they have access to modern medicine or healing magic and don't face excessive firepower.

Dire Panda
2012-06-25, 12:04 AM
One other option is to house-rule away PC deaths, replacing them with serious and permanent injury that necessitates retiring the character. That axe blow that dropped you to -12hp? Sure, you may not have bled out entirely, but your right leg now ends above the knee and you're incapacitated for the rest of the encounter. Or maybe that Fireball caused such severe burns that healing magic can't restore feeling to the left side of your body. If the party manages to win the encounter, they still need to get your crippled self out of the dungeon somehow, and even then your career as an adventurer is over.

This variant keeps combat threatening but should appeal to players who are too invested in their characters to let them die from bad rolls. In fact, having your character permanently crippled offers interesting roleplaying opportunities - he might not be able to go dungeon delving anymore, but he can serve as an adviser, mentor future generations of heroes, or just be the guy back at base camp who functions as a party administrator. The player would create a new character for adventures but might enjoy roleplaying their old one when the party returns home.

Obviously this would only work in a low-magic, modern-or-lower-tech setting where no means of curing these injuries exists, but it's something to consider.

Morph Bark
2012-06-28, 01:33 PM
I'm just going to paraphrase real quick here....

"While people often seem to prefer a quality poster, a troll draws a stronger reaction. A good thread can feature either."

I'm not sure what my own point here is exactly, but I'm fairly confident I'm making one.

You're making a point, although a misinformed one. There's a difference between people and stories, after all. If a story is full of bad things happening, that doesn't necessarily mean it is a bad story. Stories where only good things happen are actually rather boring.

Vladislav
2012-06-28, 02:06 PM
To play a devil's advocate to the above, in a story, bad things are happening to someone else, as you watch their story unfold. In a roleplaying game, bad things are happening to you.

Is that not enough to make the parallel between stories and RPGs invalid?

Knaight
2012-06-28, 04:29 PM
To play a devil's advocate to the above, in a story, bad things are happening to someone else, as you watch their story unfold. In a roleplaying game, bad things are happening to you.

Is that not enough to make the parallel between stories and RPGs invalid?

Bad things are not happening to you, they are happening to your character. As a player, I enjoy all sorts of things happening to my character that I would hate actually happening to me. Take the whole "tense battles are fun battles" concept, which many players endorse. Sure, it's fun in a game. In real life, give me the battle where I'm not horribly injured at the end. Then there is the fun of enduring miserable conditions, which would just be miserable in real life. The parallel remains, and your criticism makes little sense.

Incidentally, regarding character death - I'd say it depends on the game. In Paranoia, odds are 5-6 character deaths per player in one session is normal, and it is certainly fun. In other games, characters are much less disposable. In yet other games, death is rarely even on the table, as characters are rarely involved in combat and execution isn't exactly the first option within political scheming. So on and so forth.

Vladislav
2012-06-28, 05:18 PM
In the story that's told in the roleplaying game, your character is you.


Take the whole "tense battles are fun battles" concept, which many players endorse.As long as they win, of course.

Kadzar
2012-06-28, 05:37 PM
Well I feel that you need to maintain a certain balance in roleplaying: you need to be in their head enough that you can feel what they're feeling, but not so much that you take personal offense to bad things happening to your character.

And, anyway, a story where the main characters always succeed and nothing bad ever happens to them sounds rather boring. Or like bad self-insert fanfiction.

kyoryu
2012-06-28, 06:05 PM
In the story that's told in the roleplaying game, your character is you.

As long as they win, of course.

Wow. The presumptions being made here are pretty significant.

By your presumptions, of course, the gloves should never come off.

Vladislav
2012-06-28, 06:48 PM
Wow. The presumptions being made here are pretty significant.

By your presumptions, of course, the gloves should never come off.

Not my presumption. The presumption of the 'new school' (as opposed to 'old school') is that gloves never come off, and the PCs always win (although some adventurous souls are willing to tolerate a tense fight en route to such).


And, anyway, a story where the main characters always succeed and nothing bad ever happens to them sounds rather boring. Or like bad self-insert fanfiction. True. But a story in which you aways succeed and nothing bad ever happens to you sounds a bit better.


Well I feel that you need to maintain a certain balance in roleplaying: you need to be in their head enough that you can feel what they're feeling, but not so much that you take personal offense to bad things happening to your character.
Well said. I endorse this completely. Such balanced approach is exactly the key to great RP experience.

Telok
2012-06-28, 07:12 PM
Gloves on/off question.

Last week my players found the gnoll fort they had been sent to destroy. They stopped about five minutes down the trail and sent the sorcerer's air mephit familiar to "scout". The mephit buzzed the gate guards twice then flew directly back to the party. The players then decided to wait.

So ten minutes later a scouting party of gnolls, following the mephit, spotted them and ran back towards the fort. The party moved 100 feet off the trail. So twenty minutes later the entire soldier contingent of the fort (plus the shaman leader) showed up and attacked them.

One bit of history here, the party has attacked several patrols and some gnolls escaped to return and report. The sorcerer is particularly enthusiastic about using his familiar to deliver Combust spells and two of the gnolls that reported had been hit by it. The gnoll shaman does have (and rolled well on) Knowledge: Arcana skill. So the gnolls recognized the mephit when it showed up.

INDYSTAR188
2012-06-28, 07:44 PM
Gloves on/off question.

Last week my players found the gnoll fort they had been sent to destroy. They stopped about five minutes down the trail and sent the sorcerer's air mephit familiar to "scout". The mephit buzzed the gate guards twice then flew directly back to the party. The players then decided to wait.

So ten minutes later a scouting party of gnolls, following the mephit, spotted them and ran back towards the fort. The party moved 100 feet off the trail. So twenty minutes later the entire soldier contingent of the fort (plus the shaman leader) showed up and attacked them.

One bit of history here, the party has attacked several patrols and some gnolls escaped to return and report. The sorcerer is particularly enthusiastic about using his familiar to deliver Combust spells and two of the gnolls that reported had been hit by it. The gnoll shaman does have (and rolled well on) Knowledge: Arcana skill. So the gnolls recognized the mephit when it showed up.

First thing... did they die or live? Second (if it didn't already happen) I would let the PC's get a surprise turn (or a head start to run away) since they had 20 minutes. Also, if they decide they want to fight a whole platoon of gnolls (w/their leader) I'd say gloves partially off. What I mean is this would be a difficult fight no matter what, I wouldn't go out of my way to make it more so.

Oracle_Hunter
2012-06-28, 08:34 PM
So ten minutes later a scouting party of gnolls, following the mephit, spotted them and ran back towards the fort. The party moved 100 feet off the trail. So twenty minutes later the entire soldier contingent of the fort (plus the shaman leader) showed up and attacked them.
So... every warrior in the fort emptied out because scouts spotted a small unit of enemies?

It's a good thing the enemies weren't actually part of an ambush, or that the Gnolls were guarding anything of value within the fort. :smalltongue:

This isn't a hard/soft question, this is a question of poor tactics. The only reason the entire fort emptied was that you, the DM, knew there were no other opponents around for the gnolls to be worried about so why not drop the hammer on them? If the PCs had, instead, been trying to lure out a contingent so that their Rogue could sneak in and steal the treasure, I bet you would have left the Leader and his bodyguard around "just in case."

Zarrgon
2012-06-28, 09:13 PM
I have seen a lot of chatter about nurse-maid DMs who pamper their players with a promise of no character death. I have seen statements to the affect of, "too much went into my character to have it die."


I'm a classic hard core Killer DM. I don't care if you spent 250 hours making your perfect build character, complete with artwork, a miniature, and a 10,000 word intricate back story.....if the illithid scores a good hit it will eat your characters brain and they will die.

Now granted this puts me in the 1% of DMs, but I'm fine with that.

And granted a lot of players don't like my play style, and I'm fine with that too.


As an interesting side note though, I have had lots of converts. It seems that playing 'safe D&D' can get boring for some players. After say the dozenth adventure when they knew for almost absolute surety that their character would not die, or even be harmed or effected by anything at all, the game can get a little bland. Then they will gravitate to my game, were we have at least one or two character deaths a session and lots and lots of bad effects that can't be done away with a reset button.

Frenth Alunril
2012-06-28, 09:21 PM
I know it's not so dope, but I wish I could "like" these (in the face book way), a lot of them are ace!

I have to agree with a lot of you about player death, I just like to give them a few levels before I start chomping them up. But some of the comments here are awesome. I really wish I could play an old school dungeon crawl...

"snap"
... "oops!"
"Celling collapsed, yer dead."

navar100
2012-06-28, 09:39 PM
I'm a classic hard core Killer DM. I don't care if you spent 250 hours making your perfect build character, complete with artwork, a miniature, and a 10,000 word intricate back story.....if the illithid scores a good hit it will eat your characters brain and they will die.

Now granted this puts me in the 1% of DMs, but I'm fine with that.

And granted a lot of players don't like my play style, and I'm fine with that too.


As an interesting side note though, I have had lots of converts. It seems that playing 'safe D&D' can get boring for some players. After say the dozenth adventure when they knew for almost absolute surety that their character would not die, or even be harmed or effected by anything at all, the game can get a little bland. Then they will gravitate to my game, were we have at least one or two character deaths a session and lots and lots of bad effects that can't be done away with a reset button.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RmwqnqL3Hbg

As I said before, it's not either/or. Not preferring your Killer DM style does not equate to wanting characters to never die, ever. Obviously a player doesn't really "want" his character to die, but when it does happen it should be an appropriate, if sad, consequence of circumstance. When a DM starts feeling proud of killing a PC, he needs to give up the chair because he's lost the point.

kyoryu
2012-06-28, 10:04 PM
Well said. I endorse this completely. Such balanced approach is exactly the key to great RP experience.

Totally agreed. I think that, to a certain extent, to roleplay well you have to be able to separate yourself from your character. "Author insert" characters lead to bad roleplay, typically, as people typically freak out if bad things happen to them.



This isn't a hard/soft question, this is a question of poor tactics. The only reason the entire fort emptied was that you, the DM, knew there were no other opponents around for the gnolls to be worried about so why not drop the hammer on them? If the PCs had, instead, been trying to lure out a contingent so that their Rogue could sneak in and steal the treasure, I bet you would have left the Leader and his bodyguard around "just in case."

And this is where DMs get into trouble. It's easy to come up with the "perfect defense" if you know what the PCs are going to do, forget about the opportunity costs that the NPCs would actually have to deal with, and don't worry about the tactics the PCs *aren't* using.


I'm a classic hard core Killer DM. I don't care if you spent 250 hours making your perfect build character, complete with artwork, a miniature, and a 10,000 word intricate back story.....if the illithid scores a good hit it will eat your characters brain and they will die.

Now granted this puts me in the 1% of DMs, but I'm fine with that.

And granted a lot of players don't like my play style, and I'm fine with that too.

I don't think letting the dice fall where they may is really being a killer DM. Actively setting things up to try and kill your players probably puts you in that category.



True. But a story in which you aways succeed and nothing bad ever happens to you sounds a bit better.


It seems that playing 'safe D&D' can get boring for some players. After say the dozenth adventure when they knew for almost absolute surety that their character would not die, or even be harmed or effected by anything at all, the game can get a little bland.

(lumping these)

There was a Twilight Zone episode about this gambler that died. And then he "woke up" in the afterlife, and was surrounded by slot machines that he always won at, craps tables he couldn't lose at, poker games he always won, etc.

At first it was great. After a while it drove him mad, and he yelled at the angel that checked on him "what kind of heaven is this, anyway?"

And the "angel" just chuckled and said, "Who ever said this was heaven, Mr. Smith?"

I look at "can't lose" games the same way.

Deepbluediver
2012-06-28, 10:50 PM
I've NEVER played with a DM that swore there would be no player deaths; I can only imagine how incredibly boring that would make the game. That being said, most of the DMs would try pretty hard to avoid a TPK, giving people numerous chance to avoid unfixable mistakes. That made it easier to revive the dead or work their player back into the story as a new character.

SowZ
2012-06-28, 11:45 PM
I'm a classic hard core Killer DM. I don't care if you spent 250 hours making your perfect build character, complete with artwork, a miniature, and a 10,000 word intricate back story.....if the illithid scores a good hit it will eat your characters brain and they will die.

Now granted this puts me in the 1% of DMs, but I'm fine with that.

And granted a lot of players don't like my play style, and I'm fine with that too.


As an interesting side note though, I have had lots of converts. It seems that playing 'safe D&D' can get boring for some players. After say the dozenth adventure when they knew for almost absolute surety that their character would not die, or even be harmed or effected by anything at all, the game can get a little bland. Then they will gravitate to my game, were we have at least one or two character deaths a session and lots and lots of bad effects that can't be done away with a reset button.

I just can't picture a reasonable or deep story or one with deep inter-character relationships and dynamics with two people dying a session. Like, how are there quests even continuing and how does the group keep finding replacements and keep pursuing the same things? And if the groups continually change goals because of new characters, how can a story feel long term? And if the goals and general narrative remain the same, it would seem awfully convenient and odd. Like a band that has changed one member at a time until none of the original members are still in the band or even none of the second gen members still around yet they still play the same songs and have the same name.

Plus, developing my character and relationships with other characters is a big part of the fun for me. It makes for deep, believable stories when characters feel real to me. Now, I don't want the DM to fudge dice or use unrealistic tactics to save me. But neither do I want unrealistic plot devices to facilitate lots of deaths. When dying at high levels, how many high level PCs are even IN this setting that they can find another one? I couldn't be immersed and wonder how you keep up the feeling of a dynamic world and a dynamic group.

I have played with DMs where I die and I am perfectly okay with it. But it is often boring for the narrative. Not always, sometimes it can be used as a great moving plot device. And, as a DM, I kill a character about every third session.

kyoryu
2012-06-29, 12:20 AM
I have played with DMs where I die and I am perfectly okay with it. But it is often boring for the narrative. Not always, sometimes it can be used as a great moving plot device. And, as a DM, I kill a character about every third session.

Right. Games with higher likelihood of player death aren't about the narrative.

Telok
2012-06-29, 01:14 AM
First thing... did they die or live? Second (if it didn't already happen) I would let the PC's get a surprise turn (or a head start to run away) since they had 20 minutes. Also, if they decide they want to fight a whole platoon of gnolls (w/their leader) I'd say gloves partially off. What I mean is this would be a difficult fight no matter what, I wouldn't go out of my way to make it more so.

Two dead, four escaped, all spells/power points expended. Also those 20 minutes were what they had to hide or run away, which they didn't do. The party moved 100 feet off the path and waited, without bothering to hide, for the gnolls to come.


This isn't a hard/soft question, this is a question of poor tactics. The only reason the entire fort emptied was that you, the DM, knew there were no other opponents around for the gnolls to be worried about so why not drop the hammer on them? If the PCs had, instead, been trying to lure out a contingent so that their Rogue could sneak in and steal the treasure, I bet you would have left the Leader and his bodyguard around "just in case."

Nope. Read the whole post before replying. The party has spent to past week in the area attacking patrols and leaving some survivors. The gnoll shaman has 14 Int and Wis, and CL4 cleric casting. He knows that he's being attacked by adventurers and that he needs to smash them quickly or they will return with more magic and/or better tactics.

Also, "fort" may be a bit of a misnomer. It's really a cave in a cliff that's being expanded into a fort by goblin slaves. But the players knew that because they'd been told by the local army commander who beat it out of two gnoll prisoners he had.

Acanous
2012-06-29, 01:22 AM
I just can't picture a reasonable or deep story or one with deep inter-character relationships and dynamics with two people dying a session. Like, how are there quests even continuing and how does the group keep finding replacements and keep pursuing the same things?

It hasn't come up yet, but I've planned around possible character death by virtue of having them take occasional missions for the Sorceror king, Kyankekee. He wants things that seem pretty random, like unique creatures he can't just gate in.
That lets me introduce new people as other contacts of his, who, if they RP well with the rest of the party, can get an easy in. The new character has an introduction by a trusted NPC, a reason to adventure with the party in the short-term, and enough time during that quest to develop connections to the other PCs.

That way, you can let characters die without breaking immersion when introducing new ones.

It's only one method. There's actually a few that work.

Seffbasilisk
2012-06-29, 02:28 AM
I've seen arguments both ways.

Personally, I feel the looming spectre makes avoiding it that much sweeter.

My DM currently starts each 1st level character with three X's. An X is a Deus Ex Machina to save the character's life. When your X's are out, and your number's up, you punch the ticket.

Personally, I play a faster and more vicious cycle of life. I warn my players to prepare, and most learn to expect tactics suiting their foes.

Victory without the possibility of loss is hollow.

Autolykos
2012-06-29, 05:35 AM
Two dead, four escaped, all spells/power points expended. Also those 20 minutes were what they had to hide or run away, which they didn't do. The party moved 100 feet off the path and waited, without bothering to hide, for the gnolls to come.Wow, THAT was a display of incredibly bad tactics by the PCs, and beating them up for it was perfectly justified IMHO. If you can't think on your feet, you have no business being an adventurer.
I'd probably have part of the team lead them off on a wild goose chase (mixing ambushes, tactical retreats and harassing in a way that makes catching them impossible and breaking off the pursuit extremely costly - high-level PCs can usually pull this off quite easily on masses of low-level NPCs) and sneak in behind them. Even if the diversion fails, it could at least inflict massive losses.

Besides, when I catch the GM "cheating" like this (committing all available resources to counter the players' plan the NPCs couldn't possibly know or guess, or making up NPC equipment on the spot that incidentally makes the plan impossible to pull off) when caught off-guard, I just stop talking about plans in front of the GM and inform other players on a need-to-know basis. Most people who know me recognize my "trust me" smile and play along (works especially well when playing with my brother, we don't need many words to communicate). Until now, this has without fail either resulted in the GM giving up on cheating (we're pretty good at improvising...) or the GM blatantly dropping heaven and hell on us, and getting the whole group pissed at him (which makes a good basis for a discussion on fair play afterwards...). Either way, I win.

Oracle_Hunter
2012-06-29, 10:43 AM
Nope. Read the whole post before replying. The party has spent to past week in the area attacking patrols and leaving some survivors. The gnoll shaman has 14 Int and Wis, and CL4 cleric casting. He knows that he's being attacked by adventurers and that he needs to smash them quickly or they will return with more magic and/or better tactics.
So, these Gnolls have fought a lot of adventurers and very few conventional forces? And they never decided to romp out in force any of the previous times their patrols were attacked?

No wonder your PCs only bothered to move 100' off the road: the past dozen times they had bloodied a patrol nothing happened :smalltongue:

* * *

The larger point here is twofold. One is that your Players react to the sort of game you're running. If they have done the same thing dozens of times there is no reason they should expect the next time to be any different. This is a problem with "ratchet DMing" in which the DM is "easy" on the Players until he gets frustrated and switches over to Hard Mode. It is far better to bloody the noses of the PCs early on rather than waiting for them to get a clue.

The second point is that DMs should always think of reasons not to go all-out on PCs when they are vulnerable. From the DM's vantage it is very easy to see the optimal course of action to squish the adventurers but most NPCs operate in a world of imperfect information. To counterbalance the natural tendency to optimally counter PC actions, DMs need to err on the side of poor tactics when reasonable. In this case it would have made far more sense to send out a Brute Squad to finish off the PCs because the Leader couldn't be certain that the Adventurers were out there alone. Perhaps you, as the DM, feels he would be more certain than that, but it is perfectly reasonable for a Leader to want to hang back in a defensible position instead of harrying out into a possible (if not probable) ambush.

kyoryu
2012-06-29, 11:05 AM
Perhaps you, as the DM, feels he would be more certain than that, but it is perfectly reasonable for a Leader to want to hang back in a defensible position instead of harrying out into a possible (if not probable) ambush.

Agreed totally. As DM, you have perfect knowledge that there won't be another attack during this time. The gnolls realistically wouldn't. Avoiding the perfect knowledge trap is something that DMs have to constantly work on, and is *likely* one of the reasons for the label "killer DM", along with the fact that traps and puzzles are always obvious to their creators.

Thialfi
2012-06-29, 01:20 PM
Gloves on/off question.

Last week my players found the gnoll fort they had been sent to destroy. They stopped about five minutes down the trail and sent the sorcerer's air mephit familiar to "scout". The mephit buzzed the gate guards twice then flew directly back to the party. The players then decided to wait.

So ten minutes later a scouting party of gnolls, following the mephit, spotted them and ran back towards the fort. The party moved 100 feet off the trail. So twenty minutes later the entire soldier contingent of the fort (plus the shaman leader) showed up and attacked them.

One bit of history here, the party has attacked several patrols and some gnolls escaped to return and report. The sorcerer is particularly enthusiastic about using his familiar to deliver Combust spells and two of the gnolls that reported had been hit by it. The gnoll shaman does have (and rolled well on) Knowledge: Arcana skill. So the gnolls recognized the mephit when it showed up.


My question to you is how did you picture this fight going? You set up the gnoll shaman as being an intelligent leader that has good command of his troops. After the party offs a couple of patrols and they have been alerted to the party's presence, the shaman should do everything he can to ensure that when the gnolls encounter them again it will be with a large contingent of his forces.

The tactics detailed by Autolykos should not work. A well led group of gnolls should be quick to respond, should not not persue the adventurers if they retreat unless they have set up an ambush for the retreat. They should focus fire on casters to minimize casualties and not engage the party unless they have tactical advantage.

Telok
2012-06-29, 10:52 PM
Honestly I set up the original encounters so that they would trounce a few patrols, maybe take a prisoner or two, and locate the fort. Then either a simple surprise attack would waste the door guards and let them waltz in to take the gnolls piecemeal, or they could draw off the guards and sneak to the back where they could free the goblin slaves and blitz the fort in the confusion. Instead they sent in a recognizable familiar, didn't pursue or flee the resulting scouts, and waited long enough for the shaman to cast Augury (Int 14+ NPCs use divinations even if the PCs don't).

As for the patrols they never got all of the patrols (less than 1/3rd really) and about half the time one or two gnolls would escape and return to the fort. The party never bothered to track the escapees. Come to think of it they never bothered to try interrogating the prisoners that the local army captain had either. Over seven days they hit 5 patrols consisting of three gnolls with 2 levels of Warrior and a patrol leader with 4 Warrior levels, one mook and two patrol leaders escaped. The party is four to six level 5 characters, all martial except for the sorcerer who is pure blasty.

Anyway the real question here was if this was a gloves on or a gloves off situation.

Edit: Ah, there are 20 mook gnolls left, 4 patrol leaders, the shaman, and about 25 slaves.

Oracle_Hunter
2012-06-29, 10:58 PM
Anyway the real question here was if this was a gloves on or a gloves off situation.
Should you "keep the gloves on?"

Yes. Because your PCs were attacked with unreasonably overwhelming force.

Rallicus
2012-06-29, 11:25 PM
Brought a tear to my eye when my players actually did some reconnaissance and fled today. Up until this point they essentially attacked anything they deemed worth attacking, which included a guy who grappled a player because said player pulled a sword on him. Apparently that warranted an attack by the sorc, who blasted the poor sap until he died.

So they were pretty much "kill first and screw the consequences" until now. I can't help but think it has something to do with me "taking the gloves off" last session and essentially presenting a situation to them where they had a very good chance of being TPKed (which was justified). Amazingly the dice gods blessed every last one of them -- two on the last opportunity to save -- and now suddenly they're scoping out places and trying to figure out what's going on instead of charging in guns blazing.

Knaight
2012-06-30, 12:06 AM
In the story that's told in the roleplaying game, your character is you.
Repetition of the same point is not an argument.


As long as they win, of course.
Which doesn't detract from the point that there is a notable character player separation. The character wins, yes, bu they probably have several stab wounds, and yet the players enjoy it. I guarantee you that the players would not enjoy actual stab wounds. Why? Because there is a disconnect between character and player and the player often likes for things to happen that are bad for their character (e.g. stab wounds). Yet despite this obvious example, "characters are you" is supposed to hold up for other bad stuff? Hardly.

Given that your definition of "new school" is apparently dependent on gloves never coming off, and said assertion requires reasoning that conflates the character and the player which is clearly false, the whole argument collapses like a house of cards.

Incidentally, bad stuff and death are not synonymous, never have been synonymous, and will probably never be synonymous. Similarly, there is plenty of room for failure, ruin, et. all outside of death. Were I inclined to make ridiculous claims about eras of gaming and back them up by taking comments out of context and fabricating utter nonsense, I'd conclude that the conflation of death, failure, and bad things indicates that "old school" gaming, in contrast with "new school" gaming was a one dimensional game so shallow that the only thing that mattered to players were the lives of their characters, and as such hamstrung when it comes to meaningful variety in loss and defeat. This is, of course, wrong, but it does indicate fairly well how the dialogue around "new school" tends to pan out around here.

Honest Tiefling
2012-06-30, 01:52 AM
Depends on what your players wanna do, and what you wanna do. If they want the lethality, and you are okay reintroducing new characters rather rapidly, why not?

On the other hand, if it is a causal game and people are attached to their characters, or its really wrecking the story to have new characters, or people feel like their potential character died before they could become more then a character sheet, then its probably time to consider how to make the game less lethal and still enjoyable for the DM.

I admit, I lean to the later. I rather have a game where my character is 'safe' for the first few levels. I rather die after my character is able to have more of a meaningful relationship with other PCs, and maybe after other players can remember my PC's name and gender.

You can also consider penalties other then death. You barely escape the angry red dragon you poked in the bum...But had to leave behind some gear. Your hometown wants to discuss with you your latest escapades, including your mother...With a pitchfork. Good aligned PCs should probably worry about that pile of corpses that they might not have been able to prevent in the last town...

If everyone is happy, then who cares what level it is at?

INDYSTAR188
2012-06-30, 07:22 AM
In our last game I was accused of 'tearing the party apart'. They were in a module called the Well of Demons that I had leveled up the difficulty to their character levels. They had to go into four rooms and recover an object in each that they needed to open a door to the 'inner sanctum' to fight the BBEG. They had completed one of the rooms the session before this. I put the different parts in spoilers due to length. I'm wondering if I was being unfair (gloves off) or are my players just not working together/mixing player and PC knowledge to freely?

They started this particular session with a room known as 'the trials of baphomet' (or something to that effect) that included 12 pillars with mirrors on each sides of them. The mirrors were divided up into three separate types and would attack a PC on the beginning of his/her turn if he/she didn't close their eyes. So, literally two rounds in the Warlord and Bard are in an extra-dimensional space fighting for their lives versus a half crazed and starved gnoll who had been trapped there for a week or so (and who rolled a natural 20 on his charge attempt when they popped in). The Paladin was stumbling around with his shield up in front of his eyes, essentially moving very slowly and blind. The Artificer got hit w/two draining mirrors in a row because he just charged right into the room and was down to about 3 hp (he would later drop to -9 due to finding the item and it's being protected by two skeletons). And the Fighter got teleported to a random place in the dungeon.

The next room was an easy fight where they had to defeat a gnoll priestess and a barluga and it also contained two tiefling adventurers. They probably spent about 20 minutes grilling the tieflings and then started arguing amongst themselves about what to do with them. One group wanted to tie them up and leave them and the lawful good dwarf wanted to let them go or have them come with and help the party (no one trusted that except for him). The tieflings eventually ended up accusing them of being murderers and demanded they be let go (which they were) they then ran away. The gave chase, couldn't find them, and then decided to take a rest.

Every time they take a rest in this dungeon I have one of the players roll a d20. Random results based on the number. They wanted to take an extended rest in a room they had cleared out so that required 3 rolls. The first roll was the emissary, the second roll the abyss, and the third roll was no action. The Elf Fighter decided to take watch and everyone else took their rest. During his watch the 'emissary' showed up. It was an imp promising knowledge and power in exchange for a small price. His master needed a sum of gold and a portion of the players soul. The fighter thought about it then said he didn't want to pay that much but if he wanted to make it cheaper he'd consider...

SO, he then is 'taken' to the abyss before the emissaries master (a huge figure sitting on a throne of bones, cloaked in shadow). He repeated the offer to the PC who thought about it for literally 3 seconds and said "OK, I want to know how to kill you". The master threw his head back and laughed, took 100 gold from the player, and 1/13 of his soul (in the game he permanently took one of his healing surges). His alignment went from neutral to evil (this had been coming for a long time due to player actions anyway), he gained a +2 bonus to hide in shadows, and got a detailed look the room the last item was in.

In game the player woke up screaming and startling the other players. They looked at him and could see that his skin had a slightly purplish hue. He told them what had happened and got upset because instead of being "it's ok friend we'll help you find a way to get your soul back" they were like "we don't trust you, you go into every room first".

So this is the point where they all started arguing, like REALLY arguing and the night got a little awkward. The elf accused the players of meta-gaming and not playing their characters, and they said they had perfectly good in game reasons to act that way. He's since told me he thought the emissary/abyss thing was really cool and the artificer told me he thought I rail-roaded him into that encounter and forced it on him and that I made the encounters too hard. By the DMG standards none of them were. They did make it through the next room (with plenty of arguing), barely.

They finally got to place the items on different runes and open the sanctum, which set off a bunch of traps. The bard was sucked into a trap that made him go berserk and attack the next person he saw (the artificer who was already in a really whiny mood). But once they overcame all that, they used the best tactics and team work I've ever seen in DnD to take down the BBEG and his cronies. Now I have (after the fact) the fighter telling me if they don't cool it about meta gaming he's gonna start killing PC's. They keep doing stuff that makes him mad, like putting light on him when he's trying to sneak down hallways, or making him go first into every room, etc.

Autolykos
2012-07-01, 10:05 AM
It's very hard to tell from the events alone whether you were too rough or just fine. Looks like your DMing is more on the Old-School side to me (If I had to put numbers on it, and that situation was typical for your group, rougher than around 60-75% of the DMs, probably). It only depends on what your group is cool with.
Also, the conflict doesn't result from you being too rough or too soft, it's a problem with players not trusting each other. To better judge your part in this, I'd have to know how much you're going to enforce that character's alignment shift (and/or how much the other players expect you to do it). Is slightly off-topic though, since groups that are fine with their characters getting slaughtered left and right can be totally opposed to PvP (and vice versa).

INDYSTAR188
2012-07-01, 03:03 PM
It's very hard to tell from the events alone whether you were too rough or just fine. Looks like your DMing is more on the Old-School side to me (If I had to put numbers on it, and that situation was typical for your group, rougher than around 60-75% of the DMs, probably). It only depends on what your group is cool with.
Also, the conflict doesn't result from you being too rough or too soft, it's a problem with players not trusting each other. To better judge your part in this, I'd have to know how much you're going to enforce that character's alignment shift (and/or how much the other players expect you to do it). Is slightly off-topic though, since groups that are fine with their characters getting slaughtered left and right can be totally opposed to PvP (and vice versa).

This is well said. I would describe my style as 'Gloves On' normally. I try to make challenging encounters and I prefer to use interesting terrain features and traps to make them seem unique and memorable and I strive to be fair. Having said that I've only once killed a PC (the artificer in the above post who was a Monk that died/sacrificed himself to save the party). I'm a big fan of the rule of cool and having fun (they're hero's after all). As for enforcing the shift in alignment... I don't really have to do much. He was already playing evil in a selfish, ruthless sort of way. It was never Stupid Evil but more on the "I'm ok with helping these villagers if they can pony up the moolah to make it worth risking life and limb." I know one of our problems is one of our players is our other DM and he likes to pipe in with what 'should' happen all the time.

GeriSch
2012-07-02, 06:48 AM
I like the "where the dice fall" approach and when i'm DMing i try to play intelligent enemies as i would play a PC in battles, so they use their resources as good as they can. Unfortunately my players often make poor tactical decisions and sometimes just come up with complete random behavior (one of our gaming group invented the alignment "lawful chaotic"), so i am well known for causing many PC deaths, even though i always try to avoid something as TPKs, but even that happens.
When i GM'ed "Speaker in the dreams" there were no less than 12 PCs that kicked the bucket (thats my all-time record for just one adventure) - spoilers ahead!
But to my defense, most of that kills were just really dumb player decisions like "oh theres a big monster in the river near the town? sounds like a lot of xp - we should kill it" - needless to say, none of the characters was suited for aquatic battle and the monster had a nice lunch. Or the story of the bard who climbed a rooftop to hear a speech of the town's mayor - the mayor presented his new enforcer, a winged demon. All the townsfolk stared unbelieving, and what great idea came to the sinlge bard's mind? "I shoot at it with my bow" "You are alone at this rooftop and you shoot at it?" "Yes sure". He tried to duke it out alone on the roof with the demon and a few rounds later he was an ex-bard.
The only death i feel a little guilty of was when i used a suggestion spell on the new barbarian in the group - which the player made as substitute for his old barbarian that was killed shortly before. He botched his will save and charged, as suggested, bravely through the flaming portal - right to the nine hells... yes GMs can be mean sometimes :smallbiggrin:
And then, right at the end of the adventure, there happened to be one of the funniest moments in my gaming experience, when the characters encountered a mind flayer for the very first time (the players all knew what it was) and when the big bad illithid gave his speech, one of the characters stepped forward and disrupted him with: "I'm sorry, could you please take off the cuttlefish while you are speaking?" :smallbiggrin::smallbiggrin:

gr,
Geri

Jay R
2012-07-02, 10:01 AM
The gloves come off gradually, over the course of the first ten levels.

I'm an old-school DM, having started play with the original white box version. But I play the way we really played in the seventies, not the caricature of it that most people claim we played.

In the first adventure, or as long as they are first levels, PCs almost have to commit suicide to die. (I classify attacking a dragon, or a horde of goblins, as suicide.)

By second or third level, I expect moderately intelligent plans. They will face situations that they can run from, defeat if they aren't stupid, or negotiate with. It's possible to die, but only by being pretty stupid.

Mid-range characters can die without being stupid, if they aren't trying to be clever.

Tenth or above will face situations that are hard. By then, they should know that jumping into an encounter without planning is deadly.

This is for a new group. If all the players are experienced, then a first-level group will face hard challenges.

Along the way, they will get some advice (if needed) from NPCs.

Also, the crucial step. I try to keep them focused on being careful by implying that death is more likely than it really is. (This is where most of the misunderstanding about old-school gaming comes from.)

A very few published models were absurdly deadly back then, and they are now notorious - because they were rare. The typical gaming group of the time (that I saw) was run by a self-declared PC-killing DM who in fact only killed characters when they really messed up.

kyoryu
2012-07-02, 10:13 AM
A very few published models were absurdly deadly back then, and they are now notorious - because they were rare.

This, a thousand times.

Tomb of Horrors wasn't the rule - it was the exception. Death was always a possibility, but that didn't mean it was a constant, or that the game was a meatgrinder.

Telok
2012-07-03, 03:26 PM
Well my group solved it's problem all by themselves.

One of the deaders rerolled as a cleric and the sorcerer switched from direct damage to summoning giant centipedes. Then they walked face first into the same encounter except this time the gnolls were ready in ambush with alchemist's fire. The PCs stomped the fight. The cleric combined Prayer with a Spell Compendium spell that added +2 attack and ac for a few rounds and the party steam-rolled the gnolls despite being lit on fire in the surprise round.

So it turns out this wasn't a gloves on/off question, just bad PC decisions that week.

Synovia
2012-07-04, 08:24 AM
Agreed totally. As DM, you have perfect knowledge that there won't be another attack during this time. The gnolls realistically wouldn't. Avoiding the perfect knowledge trap is something that DMs have to constantly work on, and is *likely* one of the reasons for the label "killer DM", along with the fact that traps and puzzles are always obvious to their creators.


The Gnolls would also have no reason to trust the hundreds of goblin slaves building fortifications. You send all the Gnolls out, and they're likely to come back to a goblin fortress designed to kill Gnolls.

Quietus
2012-07-04, 09:28 AM
In the story that's told in the roleplaying game, your character is you.

As long as they win, of course.

I'm kind of curious where you think I fall as a DM actually, Vlad. This is an interesting position for you to take, and not one I would have immediately suspected. I knew you were heavily invested in your character, but I never got the impression you outright considered your character to be you.

I can definitely say that the game I ran for Vladislav, his wife, and Flickerdart was by far the most difficult game I've ever had to DM for. That being said, it was also the most fun. In general, I tend toward being a gloves-on kind of DM, but they were able to provide me with a group mechanically capable of holding their own; a high-op group capable of making creative use of the many options they had at their disposal. It was fantastic, and it allowed me to loosen the gloves, if not outright take them off, because it was damned difficult for me to kill them in the first place. I put forward enemies that were customized and difficult to take down, and they answered with unexpected force. It was fantastic.

So in general, I tend toward leaving the gloves on; I try and build my game around the stories the players provide for their PC's, and don't want to see them die to a lame random encounter. But it seems that my *preference* is to run for a high-op group where I don't have to worry about the gloves, because the fun is as much in mechanically challenging the players as it is in telling a coherent story, and I can trust them not to die because a few goblins made good Hide checks.

By the way, I miss running for you guys, Vlad. That was easily my favorite game I've ever run, I think. :smallbiggrin:

kyoryu
2012-07-04, 11:30 AM
This is an interesting position for you to take, and not one I would have immediately suspected.

Based on his response to me, I kind of think he was being at least a bit sarcastic.