Is D&D too PC friendly

[Rel]

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

Tom, you just post silly stuff like that to pad your post count, don't you?

I'd find the practice abhorent if I didn't like your avatar and invisible sig so much.

 

[redknight]

It is true, in some games death is a welcome alternative to other options (curses, family problems etc) but death is yet another risk that keeps the game interesting. I prefer playing with people who do not get obsessed with one character and see one character death as a chance to explore a new character.

As in real life, death happens, and is a part of the game (otherwise there wouldn't be rules for dying.) it is ofen how one deals with it that can define ones life. (Do the surviors seek vengeance, realize that violence is not the answer, etc.) Character death is a staple of many hollywood type movies. (Magnificent Seven, Dirty Dozen, even such bombs as Deep Blue Sea) and TV (Take Buffy and Angel for example)

Some GM get so wrapped up in the plot that they cannot continue if one of the main characters die. I prefer storylines that are forced to adapt due to a characters death. The death is recognized and the campaign is changed because of it and the campaign world as a whole seems more real and vibrant because of it.

 

[Rel]

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.

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...

Fenes, I've read a lot of your posts and I very much respect your play style and utter dedication to what your group thinks is fun. I have a hard time understanding it though. Maybe it's because sometimes "not having fun" is fun for our group.

Is having your character die fun? Not usually. But sometimes it enhances the roleplaying experience so much that it makes the overall experience much more gratifying.

Say I'm playing a Paladin and the whole party is having a rough time in a fight and are near the brink of death. Then, one more big baddie appears and it looks like the whole party could die. I say, "You guys run for it! I'll try to hold them at bay!" And I position myself between the party and the bad guys and Fight Defensively or whatever to buy them time to escape, knowing that the bad guys will probably kill my character. But that's ok. It's what that character would do and, while probably not much "fun" in the moment, it might well be the most important and memorable moment of the campaign.

I don't see how you can get that same sense of intensity and meaningfulness in a game where, no matter how seemingly suicidal the action, the player knows that his character won't die. I'm not saying it is impossible, just that most gaming groups aren't built that way.

Your group is unusual for its capacity to derive fun out of such a situation. But if it works for you, more power to you.

 

[Utrecht]

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.

On the flip side -

3e has rules that allow you to specifically attack a PC weapons.

Monsters can have class levels - "Oh its just a Kobold"

Save or Die are still around (granted they are slowly going away)

 

[Tsyr]

Is having your character die fun? Not usually. But sometimes it enhances the roleplaying experience so much that it makes the overall experience much more gratifying.

This is not what is really being discussed here, though. I agree... I'm all for meaningfull deaths. But the level of deaths beign discussed here isn't always limited to "meaningful" deaths, but rather how many player characters you should try to kill.

I think the answer is 0. You should never be TRYING to kill the character. If it happens, that's one thing, but...

 

[Zappo]

I, too, disagree with the basic premise. One death in a whole campaign isn't "just right", it's substantially too easy (oh, why isn't there an :evil: smiley on these boards?).

In any case - it's not a matter of the system, it's a matter of the GM. I've seen, done and played 3E campaigns with exactly the same rules where noone ever died, and others where one death per session was the norm.

 

[Utrecht]

Is having your character die fun? Not usually. But sometimes it enhances the roleplaying experience so much that it makes the overall experience much more gratifying.

Say I'm playing a Paladin and the whole party is having a rough time in a fight and are near the brink of death. Then, one more big baddie appears and it looks like the whole party could die. I say, "You guys run for it! I'll try to hold them at bay!" And I position myself between the party and the bad guys and Fight Defensively or whatever to buy them time to escape, knowing that the bad guys will probably kill my character. But that's ok. It's what that character would do and, while probably not much "fun" in the moment, it might well be the most important and memorable moment of the campaign.

I don't see how you can get that same sense of intensity and meaningfulness in a game where, no matter how seemingly suicidal the action, the player knows that his character won't die. I'm not saying it is impossible, just that most gaming groups aren't built that way.

Like Fenes, as a DM I try not to kill my PCs - so you will never find an impossible trap, rediculously powered mosters,etc in my campaign - viewing myself a the one responsible for generating the plot - with the PCs generating the dialog and the action.

However, if the PCs put themselves in a suicidal position (as your example above) then I have no problem killing the PCs (even better if it is for Role Playing reasons - after all, players talk about those deaths for years - never the I got killed by 1 orc)

 

[Utrecht]

I would even argue that if a DM was trying to make things as "realistic" PCS would never see 4th level.

Afterall, why does the 1st level party always seem to fight the goblins - and never the pit fiends or ancient red dragons....... If I had a DM do that to me, I would walk out.

 

[Mark]

Is D&D too PC friendly?

Nope. It's completely in the hands of the DM how challenging a game can be, so I guess I'd vote "Just Right"

 

[Umbran]

I think you might have some poorly chosen words here, but I'll try my best to answer...

anyway, do you think there should be a greater animosity towards the player from the DM

In a word, no.

In any game (1e D&D,2e,3e, White Wolf, Alternity, anything), my job as GM is to give the players an experience that they'll be glad they had. If you have "animosity" or any sort of confrontational attitude towards the players, you lessen your ability to give them such an experience. A good GM works with his or her players, not against them.

This has absolutely nothing to do with character death. In some games, working with the player means keeping them alive, in other games it means occasionally killing them.

Paranoia is a great example. Part of the GM's job in Paranoia is to do a credible job of trying to turn the characters into a fine red mist, and the player knows it. It's part of the fun and style of the game. Some D&D games run similarly. Other D&D games don't.

Whether or not there should be a reasonable chance of character death is a choice of style. Which way you choose will influence the mood and feel of your game, but neither is inherently better or worse. You choose depending on what kind of story you and your players want to tell, is all.