Is D&D too PC friendly

[JoeGKushner]

D&D is not too friendly because there are no 'official' hero points or action points to help alleviate the tyrany of the dice.

And here I thought the thread was going to be about say learning how to play.

 

[Iced Tea]

It is extremly unrealistic that a party would always face "close battles", or even most of the time.

there are cakewalk battles and other types, not just the "close enounters of the deadly kind".

 

[Iced Tea]

If you want learning to play, or at least learning how to write an adventure, never have the items that you need most to complete the adventure be susceptible to a spell that affects 90% of the creatures in the game. (cloaks of the deep or whatever that are destroyed in day light {and thespell}. Most of the creatures stop regenerating in daylight and have a chance of being stunned in the premade adventure called somethign like the "Scarlet Lord" or something like that).

 

[Iced Tea]

reason why just right means at least one PC death is because i believe that it is more realistic if at least one or two PCs have died along the way

Reason why i say it is realistic is because with all of the variables and big bad guys parties have faced and criticals and all of the factors put together, there is (or should be) a chance that at least one of your characters have hit dying or dead.

 

[WizarDru]

Prior to D&D 3E, I had, in 20 years of DMing, had 2 character deaths. LOTS and LOTS of close calls, but only two actual deaths. In the 3 years since then, I've had 7 character deaths. So, NO, I don't think 3E takes it too easy on the players. The 5% solution alone makes sure that isn't the case.

 

[2d6]

I don't think that 3E has made the game any easier for the PCs, if anything their have been more PC deaths Since we switched to 3E then in the decade prior.

and I don't support the "Dm to win" philosophy either. I think giving the PCs a healthy beating every so often is a good thing, but I try to avoid outright character deaths or TPKs.

 

[Treebore]

I'm like life, I tend to kill the PC's if they are stupid or drop their guard when they shouldn't. When they plan well, they usually live.
If luck goes against them, or they just didn't plan well, your PC's dead.

Lets be a bit on the realistic side here. Your playing a game where people can be brought back from the dead on a daily basis. So what if you die, you can always be brought back. It is a piece of paper with words and numbers on it. If you can't handle games where your character dies, why are you playing?

Where is the challenge and the satisfaction in a game where you know the DM will avoid killing your PC at all costs? You aren't accomplishing anything, not even the DM. What is the point to playing a game like that? Talk about a grande illusion.

 

[Mista Collins]

Where is the challenge and the satisfaction in a game where you know the DM will avoid killing your PC at all costs? You aren't accomplishing anything, not even the DM. What is the point to playing a game like that? Talk about a grande illusion.

In order to have fun. D&D was made to have fun, it is a game. The best way to balance everything is find out what your players like. If they want a tough challenge where their characters might die, give it to them, if not.. don't.

The reason we all sit down at a gaming table it not to beat the DM or beat the players. We sit down to have fun. If we look beyond that, what does that leave us?

 

[Fenes 2]

Lets be a bit on the realistic side here. Your playing a game where people can be brought back from the dead on a daily basis. So what if you die, you can always be brought back. It is a piece of paper with words and numbers on it. If you can't handle games where your character dies, why are you playing?

Where is the challenge and the satisfaction in a game where you know the DM will avoid killing your PC at all costs? You aren't accomplishing anything, not even the DM. What is the point to playing a game like that? Talk about a grande illusion.

First, if the PCs won't die unless the players wish or risk it you can drop the whole raise dead spells, making - at least imho - the internal consistency of a campaign more logical.

Second, I have accomplished much if I played or DMed a game where everyone had fun for hours. Having fun is the point. Your "achievements" in game are, to use your own words, "just a piece of paper with words and numbers on it". What is the point of playing when a player gets frustrated or is not having fun because his PC dies? Why should I be able or willing to "handle games where my character dies" if I have no fun in those? I don't know about you, but I make a point of not doing things I don't enjoy when I want to enjoy myself. I don't need "character building" exercises in my spare time, thank you very much (the double-meaning here is deliberate).

Really, is it that hard to understand that different people play D&D differently? There are tons of hobbies I would never consider, but I understand that other people have fun with them, and that is the whole point.

 

[Buttercup]

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

I don't think there should be any animosity at all. I don't know about you, but the people that sit around the table with me are my friends, and we're all there to have fun. It isn't a contest, and it certainly isn't a war. We're telling a story together.

If I joined a game where the DM was trying to foster animosity, I would leave the group at the end of the first session, or possibly in the middle. Life is too short to spend your free time being miserable.