Is D&D too PC friendly

[Ravellion]

(didn't read the thread, so apologies if this has already come up)

I don't think PC friendliness is inherent to the system. It is directly tied to DM style.

New DMs in 3rd or 3.5 however, will "grow up" with ideas about CRs and ELs. They might be influenced towards what you might think of as "soft DMing". However, this is not inherent to the system, even though it seems to be encouraged by the game.

That said, the DMG also advocates pitching encounters that are definitely too strong for the party, but this seems to be ignored by many players and DMs.

Rav

 

[frankthedm]

Other factors show 3e was very friendly twards PCs.

In previous edition equipped magic items could break on any failed save rather than only on 1's in 3e.

You were Not garenteed to survive being raised from death in 1 and 2 ed

Untill 3e, if your fly spell was dispelled, you fell.

 

[Enceladus]

Ever since the advent of RP-heavy games and D&D 2nd edition, the gamemaster's role has started to blur a bit, crossing over into a half-referee, half-nursemaid role. 3E pretty much slipped up the chance to instill some good old-fashioned DM fear in players. Hackmaster does a (slightly too) good job at shoving some spine back into the gamemaster image.

It's always been about being a referee. There should be no DM fear from the players, a good DM makes his players fear the environment they're in. Hackmaster does a great job in creating an adversarial situation between the DM and the players.

 

[Tsyr]

I reject the notion that there should be any animosity from the DM, or any "Players Vs. DM" attitude... You're all there for the same purpose, to have fun. One group shouln't be trying to thwart the others.

 

[Gort]

Aye, I'd rather have my players fight the bad guy, rather than fighting me...

 

[Fenes 2]

It's always been about being a referee. There should be no DM fear from the players, a good DM makes his players fear the environment they're in. Hackmaster does a great job in creating an adversarial situation between the DM and the players.

I don't know anyone that has fun fearing something. I certainly don't want my players to fear anything during a game. Now, there is nothing wrong with the PCs fearing their enviroment, but I don't need to make the players fear something for that - people who can't roleplay a character fearing death even though they (the players) know the PC won't die are not people I want to play with anyway.

 

[Enceladus]

Lets call it an instinct to not die that has achieved some verisimiltude where the dm's role is forgotten. When the players are blaming the environment and situations rather than the dm for making it so.

For example cursing and seeking a wandering merchant that sold a staff of magic missles that worked for him but for some reason won't work now rather than pointing at the DM for screwing the player over.

 

[redknight]

The way I run my games is death is a very real threat. Often a character's death get worked into the story about how the others cope with the loss. The threat of death also adds to the sense of accomplishment. When the characters succeed, they realized that it is because they accomplished it themselves and not because the gm spoon fed it to them.

I have been in too many campaigns where it was impossible for a character to die, even when the players were trying by taking exttaordinarily foolhardy risks. (Like charging a pack of ogres with a butterknife.)

Some death in a game is a good thing. If there was no risk then you might as well be reading a book.

 

[Tom Cashel]

Oh, Iced Tea...you are such a sweet and refreshing beverage...

 

[Fenes 2]

The way I run my games is death is a very real threat. Often a character's death get worked into the story about how the others cope with the loss. The threat of death also adds to the sense of accomplishment. When the characters succeed, they realized that it is because they accomplished it themselves and not because the gm spoon fed it to them.

I have been in too many campaigns where it was impossible for a character to die, even when the players were trying by taking exttaordinarily foolhardy risks. (Like charging a pack of ogres with a butterknife.)

That is why I don't play with people unable to roleplay a character fearing death (and acting accordingly) even though the players know better.

If I think a course of action is suicidal I warn the player, but as long as I don't say anything they can continue, and trust that their PC will survive - which does not mean the PC will beat the ogres, just that the PC will not die.

As far as the sense of accomplishment is concerned, I made the experience that the added enjoyment of a on battle in the game is not worth the loss of fun that worrying and fearing for my PC causes me. I played in such campaigns, and they were much less fun than my regular campaigns.

Some death in a game is a good thing. If there was no risk then you might as well be reading a book.

Why do people always equate no death = no risk? There is more to risk than death - freedom, reputation, family, ideals, goals, innocent victims, not to mention treasure/magic items are at stake even if you don't risk death. There are fates worse than death as well...