DM: "I just saved you"

[Alberic Strein]

This is going to be part rant, part questioning.

I recently had two DM's, both of them very clear when they would use a deus ex machina and get the team out of an unmanageable mess.

For some reason, this does not sit well with me. Each time it's like I hear a fancy version of "YOU SUCK".

Part of the reason comes from external factors. Both GM's have issues with balancing difficulty. One throws AC 18 critters with poison attacks doing strength damage at level 2, and gives an enemy with the weakest incidence rating 50 gangers with machine guns, while the second has an immoderate love for the Ares Alpha, an assault rifle with underbarrel grenade launcher, it's forbidden in most places but somehow, most guards we ever fight love to wield it. It's got range, damage, dodge nullifier, grenades... The last incident was when we were ambushed by 4 paramilitary guys, expressingly stated NOT to be manageable enemies, waiting for us atop a 30 meters high and 10 meters wide mine chinmey, with said assault rifles. Of course, since I didn't score any hits on my infiltration skill, they noticed me right as I popped my head to look at the scenery, BEFORE I was done climbing. Meaning dodging things would be rather complicated.

Luckily, at some point the sentence "hands on your head" was uttered, which I was only too happy to oblige, leading me back at the bottom before I got slaughtered. After we survived the following firefight, the DM expressed that we had been lucky he saved our arses.

And indeed, he did. Except that I see absolutely NO WAY for our team of two to have survived against better equipped and better positioned enemies while outnumbered to 2 to 1.

So after we are put in an unmanageable position he bails us out with a deus ex machina, notes he did it, and I feel like I dropped, the ball, that I failed, while I see no way to have succeeded.

The issue is that this particular DM is new to DM'ing, funny, interesting, and downright enjoyable, so I don't know how to bring up the issue without it feeling like a reproach.

EDIT: That, and my fellow other player WHINES. He whines for any and everything. At times we need to stop the game for dozens of minutes during which he WHINES. Which makes my whining (which happens, heh, I'm a player too and I have my bad days) complicated. DM'ing for two whiners in not enjoyable, and when one whines for anything, you have a tendency to dismiss the second whiner, which thinks a little bit more before whining like a spoiled child.

Ok, that was the rant part.

Now, for the questioning.

Let's face it, as a DM, you WILL save your players. You will even the damage on each member instead of focusing the squishies, when things get hard for them you will focus the tank, when you should have just enough damage to take down one vital party member you will do 1 less point of damage, etc, etc, etc...

I do too, as a DM, and not always subtly. i often tell my players that if they pay some hero points (which do not regen) then something will happen in their favor. Like a surprise cavalry charge from the friends of the hero bethroted to one of my PC's sister. You can't be less subtle than that.

But it's an exchange. I take some of their resources, and they have something nice. My players KNOW I fudge the die and save their arses, but I don't tell them. I don't tell them they are inadequate players. But does it make really a difference?

When I help them in a particularly awesome way, I sometimes gloat about it. Because at that point, it was I who was in a tough spot, and had troubles getting myself out of it.

On particular example was Coco. Coco was the stereotypical parrot of the stereotypical pirate boss they fought to defend their trading ship in a stereotypical scenario. The problem was that one of my players had had a very bad day, and a bad week, and at the time had some very bad rolls. Which meant that she was having a very bad time and was ready to say "screw that" to the campaign. Did I mention she also was my girlfriend at the time? How do you save your relationship and avert the "DM's Girlfriend" syndrome? Well, you pray for a good attack roll, which she got, and some awesome damage, which she didn't get. Her great attack did a grand total of 2 damage. I cannot have a boss without at least 2 points of armor, so she was going to get 0 damage, ragequit this game, potentially the whole campaign, and potentially our entire one year long relationship. What do I do? I sacrifice Coco and make it as hilarious as possible. Getting a good laugh and averting the impending crisis.

Did I save her character back there (and my campaign and my relationship)? Sure thing. Did I unceremonially gloat about it? Betcha I did. Was it VERY heavy handed? Yup. Was it a clear, and assumed right in their faces, Deus Ex Machina? YES. Is it very different from one of my DM's delivering more potent than existing healing potions in bulk to our team in the dead of the night? Err...

What do you say?

Where is the line? When do we, ad DM's who like our players, who sometimes even want (a bit) to be part of the team, go to far when helping them?

Is there a moment when "I just saved you" is an acceptable thing to say to one of your players?

[Airk]

Is there a moment when "I just saved you" is an acceptable thing to say to one of your players?

Short answer: No, this is never acceptable, even if they were facing certain death and then lightning smote their foes out of a clear sky. In a nonmagical game.

To be fair, I don't feel like you should, in general, "save" your players, either, unless you blatantly screwed up somehow. But more importantly, you shouldn't PUT your players in situations where the only outcomes are "party wins", "TPK" or "GM rescue." That's just bad GMing, IMHO, unless you're playing some sort of impartial moderator sandbox game. But even in that last situation, it's STILL not appropriate to tell the players "I just saved you."; Either they already KNOW that, and you're rubbing salt in it, or you're just mocking them. None of that is appropriate.

[Angel Bob]

Bringing in the cavalry is a great way to both save the PCs' sorry arses and reward them for making important NPC connections or actually writing backgrounds. As long as the cavalry doesn't come out of nowhere, and isn't obviously glorified (such as some amazingly beautiful elf soaring in on a golden dragon to toast the evil goblin necromancer boss in a first-level adventure), then I think it's a perfectly valid emergency tactic for a DM in distress.

Now, about fudging rolls. I find this entirely acceptable, and even admirable. It wouldn't do to have bold and glorious PCs cut down in a random encounter with an owlbear, so a DM who fudges a crucial roll to save a PC's life in such a fight is justified.

Spoiler: Example of good fudging

Show

For example, a session my group played the other day. This particular campaign is run by a friend of mine who sometimes throws too much at us. In this case, after one encounter had drained us of several resources, he immediately introduced us to two flesh golems -- a moderately difficult encounter by itself -- without letting us get a chance to rest and recover.

Anyway, because our tank was low on health and could only focus on one golem at a time, he dropped. This allowed a golem to attack the wizard, and in one turn, reduced him from full hit points to one hit point from death. The other golem then charged across the room towards the other PCs, stomping both the fighter and wizard en route. The fighter survived, but any hit to the wizard would have killed him outright. The DM prepared to roll, and as soon as one player interrupted him with a loud proclamation about a text she'd just received, he "dropped" the die into a blanket and decided not to re-roll it.

Did he blatantly fudge the roll to save the wizard's life? Yes. But he said nothing of that incident, merely mentioning after the fact that "This encounter wasn't really your highest point". That's the kind of fudging that's acceptable.

However, though both of these methods are justified in many circumstances, I don't think the DM should gloat about "saving" the PCs. Such a boast makes the players feel less empowered in a game that should be all about empowering them. Remember, even if you bring in the cavalry, it should be thanks to a meaningful alliance the PCs made in the past -- whether it be a military general who owes them his daughter's life, an old adventuring buddy they rescued from a devil, etc., etc. Even when their might alone can't triumph, their fame and friendships still hold. D&D is all about the PCs, and no DM should ever forget that.

[Jay R]

Let's face it, as a DM, you WILL save your players. You will even the damage on each member instead of focusing the squishies, when things get hard for them you will focus the tank, when you should have just enough damage to take down one vital party member you will do 1 less point of damage, etc, etc, etc...?

No, I won't. Players can sometimes die, or it's not a game; it's just wish fulfillment.

I will (occasionally) reduce the number of orcs charging, or some such, when it's clear that I made a huge mistake, but I'm not saving them; I'm cleaning up my mess. And I won't let them catch me at it, for the same reasons that I clean up my house for the game before the gamers show up.

What's the difference? My job is to provide a situation in which, if they mess up, they could die. But it's also my job not to provide a situation in which, even if they do well, they will die.

In your initial scenario, if there was a way for you to realize that you couldn't take that path, and you failed to do anything to find out, then you messed up and he saved you. But if it was impossible for you to reasonably learn that the enemy was too powerful, then the problem isn't that he saved you; it's that he never gave you a challenge. (An unavoidable encounter you must lose is no more a challenge than a weak encounter you can mow over.)

In the last game I ran, the party fled simply fled twice, since the enemy was too powerful there. This was a correct action on their part.

My players KNOW I fudge the die and save their arses, but I don't tell them. I don't tell them they are inadequate players. But does it make really a difference?

Absolutely. Telling them that you saved them is equivalent to Henry Cavill telling us in the Superman movie that he can't really fly; it's a special effect. The DM talking about saving the players is admitting that they aren't actually affecting anything. Both are spoiling the immersion by focusing on how the story is created.

Like OEdipus, I want to believe that I'm in charge of my PC's fate - especially when I'm not.

When I help them in a particularly awesome way, I sometimes gloat about it. Because at that point, it was I who was in a tough spot, and had troubles getting myself out of it.
...
Is there a moment when "I just saved you" is an acceptable thing to say to one of your players?

Nope. Every time you say it, you're saying that they weren't really playing.

And by the way, in the situation you describe, one possible solution is for the villain to beat them all, and the party wakes up chained to oars in a ship. The next adventure is attempting to escape from slavery.

Saving the party's lives doesn't mean erasing consequences; it means furthering the story with the consequences.

[jedipotter]

What do you say?

Where is the line? When do we, ad DM's who like our players, who sometimes even want (a bit) to be part of the team, go to far when helping them?

Is there a moment when "I just saved you" is an acceptable thing to say to one of your players?

I don't save characters, I'm a killer DM. If things go bad, then they just go bad. Bad is fun.

[Sebastrd]

In my opinion:

You should never save your players; they should succeed or fail on their own merits. If the PCs get themselves in over their heads, it's fine to leave them a way out that requires some sacrifices. However, the way out should always be an option, not a requirement, and the players need to know that you aren't afraid to let them fail. On the flipside, failure does not always have to mean death or the end of the adventure.

Your DM friend is doing it wrong. A good DM sets the stage for the players to do cool things. Your DM treats you like his own personal audience while he does the cool things. There is a world of difference between whining a criticizing, and your DM could use a healthy dose of constructive criticism. It sounds like he's a player using his DM powers to do all the cool things he wishes he could do as a player.

[ElenionAncalima]

I was guilty of this once...but I made it very clear that it wasn't the players fault, it was just bad luck (Max damage+deadly aim longbow crit on the very first round of a boss fight). Also, I wasn't trying to rub it in, she had seen what I rolled and I didn't want to make her sit out the final fight for something that was my fault, if it was anyone's...since I hadn't realized that I had an enemy who could oneshot a PC. I had balanced the encounters based on average rolls, without giving much thought to max and min. This was a lesson in DMing for me, not a lesson in playing for her. However, I think the key was (and why the players didn't seem to mind) is that I never tried to make it seem like I was graciously saving her from a rightful death. I made it very clear that I didn't think it was fair for her to die that way, thus the change. Its certainly not a DMing moment that I gloat about.

Also, that player may just be cursed, because she gets hit by absolutely everything and gets crit pretty much any time there is an enemy with a x3 weapon. Meanwhile, the two other melee PCs never seem to get hurt. Its practically running joke at this point. I think the player has adopted a gotta laugh to keep from crying attitude about it all...and thankfully her luck seems to be improving over the last two sessions, so now she gets really excited whenever something misses her.

[Red Fel]

Let's face it, as a DM, you WILL save your players. You will even the damage on each member instead of focusing the squishies, when things get hard for them you will focus the tank, when you should have just enough damage to take down one vital party member you will do 1 less point of damage, etc, etc, etc...

Agree in part, disagree in part.

As a DM, I may fudge some numbers. For example, if I prepare an encounter, and realize before the encounter begins that it is unbalanced, I may rebalance it before it happens. If the encounter is underway, and I realize that it is unbalanced, I will ensure that there are options available to my players (such as terrain tactics or escape routes) that will enable them to survive, escape, or possibly succeed with enough quick thinking. (I will also apologize afterwards for messing up on the balance.) If an enemy gets an outrageously lucky hit that should not have worked and manages to end the encounter in the first round, I will likely fudge that success down to a slightly-less-lethal result, probably causing massive harm but not completely ending the game. But I will not "save" my players. My encounters should be things that the players, acting smartly, can handle in multiple ways. If I did something wrong, I will offer additional options that will enable them to survive if they know to take advantage, but if they're playing stupidly, I'm not going to save them from themselves.

And when I do it, I try to be as subtle as possible. Because it should never be about me saving them. Occasionally, I may have to be blunt (e.g. "You know, this is a cave. There are stalagmites you can hide behind.") but I won't take credit for it; I see having to fudge the numbers as a sign of personal failure, not a sign of my own power as DM.

What do you say?

Where is the line? When do we, ad DM's who like our players, who sometimes even want (a bit) to be part of the team, go to far when helping them?

Is there a moment when "I just saved you" is an acceptable thing to say to one of your players?

The short version? The DM should never take credit for the PCs' actions, and that includes their survival. The players should be given every opportunity to succeed or fail on their own merits; that opportunity shouldn't be taken from them. In a case where the DM sets them up against impossible odds and then saves them, he is doubly at fault - first, for creating an unwinnable scenario, and second for taking control of the PCs' fates. But even where the DM doesn't set out to create an unwinnable scenario, and ends up calling the cavalry anyway, he is at fault.

If, as a player, I fought my way to the castle beyond the goblin city to take back the child you have stolen, only to be defeated at the last minute and saved by an army of animated rocks, I'm not going to feel thrilled that the child has been rescued and the goblin king turned into a fluffy white owl. I'm going to feel cheated. I might even feel more frustrated by that outcome than if I had simply died at the hands (or feet, or giant sword) of a giant goblin robot. By contrast, however, if I had been reminded that one of my allies has the ability to animate rocks, and I then chose to employ that ability, thus resolving the encounter in my favor, I'd feel much better about the victory.

Side note, every campaign is more awesome when you add David Bowie.

Moreover, actually announcing it like that - "I just saved you," - as if I should be grateful, is just bad form all around; a DM should neither gloat over thwarting the players nor over making them succeed. A DM should be gloating because the players are praising his skills as a DM, not because he did something awesome and the players need to notice it.

[TheCountAlucard]

None of my players has died, yet. To my knowledge.

I can safely say, though, that if they were in danger of it, I wouldn't pull a Deus Ex Machina out of nowhere and save them.

[Kalmageddon]

I usually "save" my players when an enemy scores an incredibly lucky roll, like a triple natural 20 or something like that. Or when my players are having some really bad luck, rolling only faliures turn after turn, I might have the enemy roll just as badly to avoid a curb stomp battle based solely on bad rolls.
Outside of that, I usually don't show any mercy.

[JusticeZero]

One way to make the rescue hurt less is to make the "cavalry" be people they would rather not see there - another enemy group, or the guy who is going to take credit for the whole thing and get away with it. Or, the enemy just takes prisoners. They aren't dead, but things definitely look bad anyways.

[Sartharina]

When it comes to DM bailout.. DMs gloating about it is not good. However, a DM that decided to bail players out can admit that he made a mistake in calibrating the encounter, and it wouldn't be worth the loss of player-characters because of that mistake.

[Rhynn]

I recently had two DM's, both of them very clear when they would use a deus ex machina and get the team out of an unmanageable mess.

Deus ex machina (or cheating at dice, or whatever) is already bad GMing (usually done to fix some earlier bad GMing), but rubbing the players' faces in it is just ridiculous.

Why are the players even there if their choices don't have consequences and you won't let them fail? Some people should write short stories instead.

Let's face it, as a DM, you WILL save your players. You will even the damage on each member instead of focusing the squishies, when things get hard for them you will focus the tank, when you should have just enough damage to take down one vital party member you will do 1 less point of damage, etc, etc, etc...

Nope. That's cheating. Why would I cheat at a game? I expect my players not to cheat, so I should do the same.

I'll let them save themselves. Never had a problem with this method. (It helps that I don't write myself into single-solution win-or-TPK corners on the rare occasions that my games aren't entirely player-driven.)

To be fair, I don't feel like you should, in general, "save" your players, either, unless you blatantly screwed up somehow. But more importantly, you shouldn't PUT your players in situations where the only outcomes are "party wins", "TPK" or "GM rescue." That's just bad GMing, IMHO

Yes, yes, and yes.

unless you're playing some sort of impartial moderator sandbox game.

Not even then. The players can put themselves in a really bad situation, though, but the power should be with them: playing reasonably okay, they should be perfectly able to avoid such situations.

What's the difference? My job is to provide a situation in which, if they mess up, they could die. But it's also my job not to provide a situation in which, even if they do well, they will die.

This is a great way to put it.

Of course, in almost any campaign, there exist situations that the PCs can force themselves into where they don't really stand a chance, but that a culmination of bad choices and failures, not a single mistake or poor roll.

I don't save characters, I'm a killer DM. If things go bad, then they just go bad. Bad is fun.

This is so very true.

A big part of my player-driven campaigns is that, as the GM, I need to think about consequences for their actions between sessions. It turns out that bad consequences are always the ones that provide more fodder for play. Good consequences are generally just rewards that tend to tie off a particular plotline.

One way to make the rescue hurt less is to make the "cavalry" be people they would rather not see there - another enemy group, or the guy who is going to take credit for the whole thing and get away with it.

This is really kind of a writing classic. "We're saved" turns into "out of the frying pan and into the fire," but the "break" in the situation gives the protagonists a chance to turn things around and find a way out of the situation.

As the GM, you are in control of such coincidences and timings, and it can be a very organic way to give your players a chance without needing to cheat or negate their agency; you shake things up and give them a chance, but also add a new complication or obstacle.

It doesn't have to be people, either. Maybe the pursuers lose the PCs because of a dust storm, but that gets the PCs lost too. Maybe a storm breaks out and the enemy ship is left behind, but now the PCs' own ship is in danger of foundering. Maybe the roof of the burning building collapses, separating the PCs from the enemy - but now they're trapped in a burning building. And so on...

The difference to a deus ex machina is that you're not giving a solution, you're changing the situation - coincidence, luck, or god don't reach down and solve everything neatly, but rather a new complication changes things.

And, of course, if the players were clever enough to make friends or have backup or arrange an extraction, it's often most dramatically satisfying to have the help show up at the nick of time, rather than at a predetermined time.

[Airk]

This is really kind of a writing classic. "We're saved" turns into "out of the frying pan and into the fire," but the "break" in the situation gives the protagonists a chance to turn things around and find a way out of the situation.

As the GM, you are in control of such coincidences and timings, and it can be a very organic way to give your players a chance without needing to cheat or negate their agency; you shake things up and give them a chance, but also add a new complication or obstacle.

It doesn't have to be people, either. Maybe the pursuers lose the PCs because of a dust storm, but that gets the PCs lost too. Maybe a storm breaks out and the enemy ship is left behind, but now the PCs' own ship is in danger of foundering. Maybe the roof of the burning building collapses, separating the PCs from the enemy - but now they're trapped in a burning building. And so on...

The difference to a deus ex machina is that you're not giving a solution, you're changing the situation - coincidence, luck, or god don't reach down and solve everything neatly, but rather a new complication changes things.

And, of course, if the players were clever enough to make friends or have backup or arrange an extraction, it's often most dramatically satisfying to have the help show up at the nick of time, rather than at a predetermined time.

And to bring the thread back full circle, if you do one of these things, you should never, ever, EVER then say "I saved you!" to the party. WTF?

[Vizzerdrix]

Let's face it, as a DM, you WILL save your players. You will even the damage on each member instead of focusing the squishies, when things get hard for them you will focus the tank, when you should have just enough damage to take down one vital party member you will do 1 less point of damage, etc, etc, etc...

No. I respect my players too much to cheat them like that.

[SimonMoon6]

If failure has no consequence, then victory has no meaning.

So, having a DM save the PCs makes a game ultimately pointless beyond the "let's all tell a story" aspect.

[Spore]

Please please please do not fudge the last dice. See the general direction of the battle and adjust the difficulty from there. There is something insulting in animal-like intelligence monsters suddenly switching to nonlethal damage. There is something aggravating in not executing the rogue for robbery and treason but instead mutilating his body and forcing his character to stay in the game.

If the battle is meant to be hard but not TPK material, reduce the numbers of assisting waves. Introduce a NPC saving their asses (and after the battle, demanding some loot), give larger than RAW penalties depending on the situation (when a melee kills three orcs in a round, this could either not phase them at all or get them to retreat).

I haven't DMed and I will have a really squishy character (almost no HP, Fort negative, only line of defense is armor class) in my group - possibly forcing me to kill her off in the first sessions. She is the vital character in one of my main plot lines but I will try to adapt my story to not kill her, but incapacitate her to abduct her for the BBEG to marry. But that's a decision I make beforehand. If I would use a poison using assassin to kill her, I might as well just ask the player to roll a different character than going through the hassle of introducing her, killing off and introducing his other character.

But if she dies, she dies. (The player always brings up characters way below the party's optimization level forcing DMs to play around his characters.)

[Thrudd]

She is the vital character in one of my main plot lines...

This is part of the problem, right here. You've already written yourself into a corner by having a plot which requires a specific character be present. The player might stop making purposefully weak characters if he knew it was a game where the DM wasn't forced to "work around" his character, and instead he needed to solve the game's challenges on his own. At the same time, the DM is responsible for making sure the game's challenges can be solved by the players, where outcomes are not predetermined.

Make sure some of the challenges they face can be solved by means other than combat, so a character with high charisma and intelligence could contribute rather than just having to run away or be saved by the DM. A player should be able to create any sort of character the game allows and have a chance of surviving and contributing, although some choices may make a more difficult game than others.

For example: is there no way for the character in question to avoid having an assassin sent after her? What did the player do that has resulted in powerful people trying to kill or kidnap his character? If the players' choices have not placed his character in this danger, he shouldn't be expected to face consequences for it. In other words, it isn't that the character is too weak to survive, the problem is that the player hasn't had a chance to play the character appropriately. A physically weak character needs to use their other abilities to avoid combat whenever possible, and needs the cooperation of a party that includes some strong fighters to protect them when it can't be avoided. Will the player have the opportunity to use these tactics to avoid getting killed or captured? Was the player told that his character would be facing assassination attempts from the beginning of the game, and he still chose to build his character this way?

[sktarq]

This is going to be part rant, part questioning.

I recently had two DM's, both of them very clear when they would use a deus ex machina and get the team out of an unmanageable mess.

For some reason, this does not sit well with me. Each time it's like I hear a fancy version of "YOU SUCK".

For me it depends on the definition of "unmanageable" and fault and is very poorly phrased in any case. As a ST/GM/DM i will and have let my players know that if I accidentally screw them over by totally boffing a judgment I will do something to try and give the players an out. My preferred thing is to do is substitute a lesser but more immediate challenge, a situational improvised weapon to help level things up, or storytellingly highlight avenues of retreat and give more than RAW penalties to the pursuer. But only if it is not the players fault. Which means there is a slight addendum. If one player does something totally stupid that has a very high chance to kill another PC, I will fudge and even more than little the other PC's ability to escape. A couple extra rolls on the booby trap setup-a round or three of delays (either by continuing to beat up the corpse of the offending PC, slower blast triggers - whatever) . I'll deux ex machina chances and more than RAW ability to react but not do it for them in general. Id happened a lot more often when I was a teenager and not as good at DMing.

On particular example was Coco. Coco was the stereotypical parrot of the stereotypical pirate boss they fought to defend their trading ship in a stereotypical scenario.I sacrifice Coco and make it as hilarious as possible. Getting a good laugh and averting the impending crisis.

Cool story, and a good bit of DMing-you took a problematic situation and did you fudge the dice? nope. she still didn't cause more than two damage. You just made her, minor, contribution more central to the action and fun of the game in order to keep the social parts of the game working. I'd say its fine to bring this kind of story up in discussions of DMing and the like but very not okay during the game itself. There are cool stories in how movies are made but it shouldn't ever appear during the screening of the movie itself.

Is there a moment when "I just saved you" is an acceptable thing to say to one of your players?

If and ONLY if it is followed by some version of "from my total earlier stupidity, sorry about that."

[TheThan]

My job is to provide a situation in which, if they mess up, they could die. But it's also my job not to provide a situation in which, even if they do well, they will die.

T he short version? The DM should never take credit for the PCs' actions, and that includes their survival. The players should be given every opportunity to succeed or fail on their own merits; that opportunity shouldn't be taken from them.

Exactly! The PCs should be able to survive on their own merits. If the Gm has to interfere to keep them alive then he’s doing it wrong. Granted GMs make mistakes, it’s easy to misjudge the strength of the party. So fudging dice rolls to prevent a TPK because the Gm made a mistake, that’s reasonable. Ideally, the Dm should never have to fudge rolls or save a party’s tail because he messed up; the reality is that it happens. However, PCs should be allowed to fail, but that failure should be on their heads not the GM’s. If they screw up, and get killed (or fail to save the day, whatever) that’s their fault. Consequences should happen, and the game should continue (unless it’s the end or whatever).

[Rhynn]

If failure has no consequence, then victory has no meaning.

Yes.

I think my players will appreciate megadungeons like the Undermountain a lot more if they're all actually lost PCs - maybe entire parties - in there. Overcoming something that's hard to beat is so much more satisfying.

So, having a DM save the PCs makes a game ultimately pointless beyond the "let's all tell a story" aspect.

Yes. And that's a perfectly valid thing to do, but if you're going to do it, you should be up front about it, involve your players, and maybe use a game that supports it. There are many.

This is part of the problem, right here. You've already written yourself into a corner by having a plot which requires a specific character be present.

This is absolutely spot-on. It's not egregious bad GMing, but it is bad GMing.

If you create a situation where multiple things can happen (players win, players lose; character lives, character dies; etc.) but only one of those things is acceptable, you've gone way wrong.

If you want to run games where characters don't die because it's not right for their storyline, pick a game where e.g. characters can't die unless the player thinks it's dramatically appropriate, or where players at least have some agency or ability to affect character death. (Resurrection magic is a decent way, too.)

[Amphetryon]

Short answer: No, this is never acceptable, even if they were facing certain death and then lightning smote their foes out of a clear sky. In a nonmagical game.

To be fair, I don't feel like you should, in general, "save" your players, either, unless you blatantly screwed up somehow. But more importantly, you shouldn't PUT your players in situations where the only outcomes are "party wins", "TPK" or "GM rescue." That's just bad GMing, IMHO, unless you're playing some sort of impartial moderator sandbox game. But even in that last situation, it's STILL not appropriate to tell the players "I just saved you."; Either they already KNOW that, and you're rubbing salt in it, or you're just mocking them. None of that is appropriate.

So, if you know your party will never, under any circumstances to date, run away from a fight that's too strong for them (because DMG guidelines indicate these should probably happen 5% of the time, to make the world feel more alive), how do you run combats so that the above is true? What if an otherwise appropriate fight goes badly due to the RNG tilting wildly in your favor whilst you're doing all the rolls in the open? You know, the party suddenly can't roll above a 5 for two rounds, while your bad guys score lucky Critical Hits on the party members who are closest to them and happen to be the squishiest? Is putting them in a level-appropriate fight, for which they're adequately prepared, that kills them an example of you "blatantly screw[ing] up somehow" as the GM? What should have been done differently?

[Rhynn]

So, if you know your party will never, under any circumstances to date, run away from a fight that's too strong for them (because DMG guidelines indicate these should probably happen 5% of the time, to make the world feel more alive), how do you run combats so that the above is true? What if an otherwise appropriate fight goes badly due to the RNG tilting wildly in your favor whilst you're doing all the rolls in the open? You know, the party suddenly can't roll above a 5 for two rounds, while your bad guys score lucky Critical Hits on the party members who are closest to them and happen to be the squishiest? Is putting them in a level-appropriate fight, for which they're adequately prepared, that kills them an example of you "blatantly screw[ing] up somehow" as the GM? What should have been done differently?

If TPK is possible in the game, then you have to be willing to run with it. It's not hard to construct campaigns to survive TPK, and there's many different ways. (Or find games that don't have a chance of TPK.)

I'm 100% okay with letting PCs kill themselves with bad decisions. I think "combat encounter" is too narrow a definition of "situation" - it can be part of a situation the PCs get themselves into, and it can go really badly, but so long as the PCs had a chance, choices, options, whatever, it's all cool. So, an unwinnable, unescapable fight can be the end-result of a really poorly handled situation, but you wouldn't force that on the PCs.

If the players are unwilling to retreat, escape, flee, or otherwise use tactics, then you've got two options: let them learn the hard way (I encourage this) or cheat to keep them alive (I think this sucks the point out of the game).

[DigoDragon]

If the PCs are about to die from a dumb die roll, I'll secretly fudge things so they aren't killed. Death by random chance isn't much fun to me. If the PCs do some bone-headed crazy plan when they obviously know better, then I won't employ the net should they fall to their deaths. To this day only one PC has died by dice rolls, though at the same time he did go off on his own instead of sticking with the group, so it's indirectly his bad idea that killed him.

[Slipperychicken]

I will (occasionally) reduce the number of orcs charging, or some such, when it's clear that I made a huge mistake, but I'm not saving them; I'm cleaning up my mess. And I won't let them catch me at it, for the same reasons that I clean up my house for the game before the gamers show up.

As a player, I can get behind this.

[Amphetryon]

If the players are unwilling to retreat, escape, flee, or otherwise use tactics, then you've got two options: let them learn the hard way (I encourage this) or cheat to keep them alive (I think this sucks the point out of the game).

Both of those options are examples of what Airk previously defined as 'the GM screwing up,' though. I don't think that can be correct.

[veti]

She is the vital character in one of my main plot lines but I will try to adapt my story to not kill her, but incapacitate her to abduct her for the BBEG to marry.

If a character who's "vital to a plot line" dies, then it seems to me you've got a new plot.

She was the Chosen One, she alone will stand against the vampires, de... (sorry, getting carried away but you get the drift)? Then either you need to find another Chosen One or figure out how to get by without one. Should be possible.

She's the Rightful Heir, best chance of deposing the Evil Usurper? Then either find someone who can impersonate her, or "discover" a whole new heir, or just forget the whole thing and stab King Badman the Unrighteous when he's on the khazi. None of those are impossible, they're just a new plot.

She's the love interest of the 3000-year-old vampire boss, and you were going to use her to convince him to give up his unlife peacefully? Too bad, you'll just have to stake him the old-fashioned way. Might take a few more levels, but hey, that's what quests are all about, right?

Inflexible plots are Bad.

So, if you know your party will never, under any circumstances to date, run away from a fight that's too strong for them (because DMG guidelines indicate these should probably happen 5% of the time, to make the world feel more alive), how do you run combats so that the above is true?

In that game, the players are getting themselves into an unwinnable situation by their refusal to run away. So long as the DM gave them a reasonable chance to assess the level of the fight before they were committed to it, then the TPK is on their heads, not the DM's.

Of course you can still pull the old "wake up chained to an oar" switcheroo, if the enemies are at all intelligent.

[Amphetryon]

In that game, the players are getting themselves into an unwinnable situation by their refusal to run away. So long as the DM gave them a reasonable chance to assess the level of the fight before they were committed to it, then the TPK is on their heads, not the DM's.

Of course you can still pull the old "wake up chained to an oar" switcheroo, if the enemies are at all intelligent.

The DM - along with the RNG - controls the monsters, not the Players. It still reads as the only options for combat in such a game are "Players win," "TPK," or "GM rescue," from here.

But more importantly, you shouldn't PUT your players in situations where the only outcomes are "party wins", "TPK" or "GM rescue." That's just bad GMing

coupled with:

Deus ex machina (or cheating at dice, or whatever) is already bad GMing (usually done to fix some earlier bad GMing)

So, how does one follow DMG guidelines, while avoiding the above bad outcomes? Saying 'the Players did it to themselves' is avoiding the question, because the Players typically don't have perfect knowledge of what encounters are upcoming, even if they've done recon.

[Gamgee]

I have a similar problem. Where I plan or use the logical consistencies of my campaign to "save" them even though it makes complete sense. Hell I even build up this help and then they think I'm bailing them out on a whim. No my player friends, this was accounted for as a possibility. They would have shown up even if it wasn't dire straights because they have a score to settle. So then they always accuse me of gm bailing them out, but then have to eat their tongues when I later reveal that the justified reasons for the situation unfolding like that.

I also have a whiny player that complains about everything. I put up with his **** for years, but it's gotten so bad its turned to tantrums. Even his friends don't want to play with him anymore. He hasn't been playing with us much recently. If the game doesn't revolve around him he thinks it sucks. If the game completely revolves around him it's the best game ever. He recently tried to GM a game simply to get people to pay attention to himself and prove he was a better GM than myself. Character creation took 2.5 hours and then he GM'ed for all of 20 minutes before calling it quits. I don't even know why. He just stopped, got up, and left the room with barely a word. No cell phone, no nothing.

Makes me think of this.

[Rhynn]

Both of those options are examples of what Airk previously defined as 'the GM screwing up,' though. I don't think that can be correct.

Sure it can. I'm right, Airk's wrong.

Or the truth is something else altogether. There are opinions, man.

While Airk and I agree on a lot of stuff, we also have some pretty fundamental differences in our views (some of which definitely come into play here; I'm for hardcore old-school player-driven sandboxing and megadungeons, and I'm pretty sure that's not Airk's cup of tea).

The DM - along with the RNG - controls the monsters, not the Players. It still reads as the only options for combat in such a game are "Players win," "TPK," or "GM rescue," from here.

Yep. Like I said, either you cheat (bad) or they learn (good). If they won't learn, you're going to either keep killing them and everyone has a bad time, or you're going to cheat and create a hollow shell of a game and try to make sure they don't realize the illusion. I'd be unsatisfied as all get-out running a game like that, but I guess you can find something to enjoy in it (or despite it).

So, how does one follow DMG guidelines, while avoiding the above bad outcomes? Saying 'the Players did it to themselves' is avoiding the question, because the Players typically don't have perfect knowledge of what encounters are upcoming, even if they've done recon.

"Perfect knowledge" is a strawman. They don't need perfect knowledge. That's not the issue here. The issue is a condition you've put on this: players who refuse to play even halfway decently, nevermind well or smart. That's a problem you either have to solve or live with.

A basic willingness to play sort of smart (gathering information, scouting, retreating and regrouping, etc.) is all players really need. I've only ever had one TPK (a small party vs. really brutally-played psionic illithids who came in with full buffs and escaped as soon as things went bad, only to attack again) in like 20 years, and for probably half of that everyone involved was horrible at playing/GMing.

Again, though, there's many RPGs that completely avoid these issues, if you're willing to try. Narrative control of scenes can be distributed differently, some games don't really have death as a thing that happens, some games have death as a thing that's supposed to happen, and so on...