Hiya!
Ok. I think on this point we are just going to do the old "agree to disagree" thing.
When a DM rolls something random, or pre-places it, and that gets a PC killed or a TPK I don't see the DM as having any tangible involvement in the deaths other than he's the one making the rolls, or wrote it down in the past. I think our disagreement is on the "power" of the Dice Roll. I see the moment the DM makes a dice roll ("for realzies"...not for "show" when he's already predetermined something for whatever excellent reason he must have), the moment the dice hit the table it absolves the DM from the outcome. The DM is "giving up" his claim on the narrative and leaving it in the hands of fate.
Sorry to take so long to reply.
I think this is just due to a difference in play style. I don't roll for random encounters at all. I choose when and where encounters may happen based on the player choices, and what makes sense for the setting, and what will make for fun play.
Ahhh....different DM'ing styles at play here. You said you don't make your players gather info like that so you just hand a list of NPC's names, locations, occupations, whatever and...I'm guessing here... say something like "After an hour walking through town and stoping at a couple shops or taverns, you have a feel for the town". Is that closer? Sort of a 'quick narrative' to gloss over all the stuff that "wastes time" talking with NPC's and stuff? That's fine, and I admit to having done this a handful of times in my day...but usually due to severe time constraints and a player leaving the campaign due to a move, extended vacation, expired-student visa, etc....where we wanted to get to the "end game" quicker in the session, so to speak.
But as a common occurrence? Naaa. Something about that method just sort of makes me feel like I'm cheapening out as a DM. I'm depriving myself and my players of opportunities to have all those cool surprises we get when we least expect it. Like a player playing a self-centered dwarven barbarian (I think that's what he was; it was a 3.5e campaign a decade and a half ago)...who, after a street urchin girl tried to pick his pocket. Normally he'd have punched the would be thief out cold (regardless of the fact it was a 9 year old girl). In stead, he talked to her, asked why, wanted her story...he bought her a nice warm meal and walked her back to the orphanage/church. He then pretty much became that orphanage's "protector" and donated most of his adventuring money to them and paid to fix up the place. It was all "out of character" up until that point. The player figured that it reminded his PC of his best friend growing up...a girl...and something bad happened to her. This was the 'straw' that turned him into a cold-blooded mercenary.
If I had just handed them a list of places and names "Orphanage: Thelda, F human, 47", he wouldn't have been wandering around town with the group, getting to know the lay of the land and talking to folks. They would have headed straight to the inn/tavern. Yes, this could have happened...I could have "chosen" it as an encounter to see what happens...but then I'm not surprised nearly as much. Besides, all that RP'ing we did was "on the fly"; I had no idea who the little girl was, what her story was, why Thelda was the matron at the Orphanage...hell, I didn't even know there WAS an orphanage in town. All this wonderful character interaction and story building because I rolled on a table because the PC's were "forced to waste time" in a town they'd never been to.
Well, no....I'm talking about very basic knowledge. "What's to the north of town?" and the like. I find that players will always forget to ask some minor question about something that's obvious, and I long ago decided to stop making them perform basic info gathering. Anything that might not be common knowledge is something else altogether. But the name of the inkeeper, or the local noble or mayor....things like that, I don't hand them a list of NPC stats, but I just allow them to know it when it comes up. I tell them.
We still get plenty of roleplaying into the game as they discuss things with the townsfolk. It's just those things aren't about mundane facts, they're more related to the PCs' goals.
This I agree with. I think I even said something similar in one of the mini-novels we've been writing here.
I think our differences is the reasoning. For you, you'd do this to "give them a hint" and if they didn't abide, or didn't care, you don't "warn them" again. Good!
For me, however, I would roll to see the Encounter Distance. (again, probably 1e/Hackmaster4e/BECMI...I really gotta get all this organized again!) Outdoors, this can be pretty far, it usually isn't anywhere near 'melee' range. So if the distance dice turned up far enough, then there ya go. Alas, if the dice turned up the distance as pretty much 'right there', then we move onto Surprise. Maybe the Giant is sitting down, back to a big tree, and the PC's kinda wander around an upturned tree to see him only 20' away. Or maybe the Giant is laying in wait behind said tree. This is where I take what the dice have given me, distance, surprise, reaction, reason, and weave it into an interesting "encounter".
At this point...yes. I agree that I, as a DM *DO* have some control over the situation; I can try and "guide" the rolls to a more neutral "encounter". And I do sometimes, but only because it's what pops into my mind as 'fitting the situation'. Other times it's more against the PC's for the same reason. So...in THAT sense, ok. I agree that I, as DM, bare some responsibility if a TPK occurs. But usually the dice tell a pretty obvious story and the creature in question's alignment/intelligence/"attitude" usually point towards one type of "situation".
Yeah, I don't roll any of those factors....so for me, it's all a decision I make. This gives me the leeway to give the players a break now and again, if the circumstances warrant it.
This I don't agree with. I can see why you believe the DM has more of a role in a TPK or not, though, because of this response. You could have the Giant knock a PC out...but in doing so you have now taken the side of the PC's. You are no longer a neutral party to the matter. You are no longer the "world", and now more like an omnipotent being "watching over" the PC's. Can I assume you keep track of the HP's each PC has? Or is this more of a blatant "Hmmm...he hits you so hard he knocks you out and sends you flying 20' back the way you came"? Point is; how do you "knock him out" without it being painfully obvious that you are "trying to keep the PC's alive"? And what's to stop the Players from thinking you won't keep doing that if they press the attack? Sure, if you do this enough...encounters where you just decide X happens to "send a message", the Players will know that when something like this, that is 'out of the rules', happens that is you saying "Ok. I saved you. Now I want you to run away. Or I'll let your PC die". To me this seems far too...risky...to do. One thing a DM can not ever have his Players thinking is that the DM is "weak" or "spineless" (sounds pretty CE, huh? LOL!) If the Players think the DM is going to try and cut them a break anytime a TPK is on the line, or some other major plot-destroying event happens, they will use that. Maybe not even consciously, but it will be used.
No, I don't track PC HP. What I meant by "knock out a PC" was simply knocing him to 0 HP. In 5E, as you mention later, there are no negative HP. So a PC is unconscious when at 0 HP, and possibly making death saving throws. Death saves have a better than 50/50 chance to succeed since it's success on a 10-20 and failure on a 1-9 (another thing that makes a TPK really difficult).
So in my example, I make it clear that this giant is not to be trifled with, and I hope that my PCs will grab their friend and run. It's another point of me communicating the facts of the world to them. In my experience, that job doesn't stop when an encounter is triggered. It's a constant task that the DM must perform throughout the game.
But more importantly, I think I am looking at things from the Giant's point of view. If it can end a fight in one swing, and avoid any further combat, why would it not do so? In this case, the PCs attacked him.
Do you ever have bad guys choose to end or try to end combat early? Or is it more once combat starts, it's always a fight to the death? I've played games with the latter approach very often, and I always thought it was somewhat arbitrary. So I prefer the former....each combat is its own thing, with participants on both sides who want different things. What those things may be, and how it causes them to approach the fight will vary greatly.
As DM, I have a lot of influence on that.
Also, as a DM I'm not really interested in being neutral. I know that's a big change from the way people looked at it in the earlier editions. I prefer a more involved approach where I am a fan of the PCs, but I also want them to struggle. I want things to be hard, but I hope for them to succeed.
I agree that a DM can just decide "No encounters tonight", then roll dice behind the screen for effect and say "The night passes by uneventfully". Yes. My point is that if a DM grabs those dice, and rolls them, then gets an encounter, rolls for what, and gets the worst possible result for the PC's survival...and THEN says "The night passes by uneventfully", or even changes the "Medusa" to "Black Bear"...THAT is a bad DM'ing move. Sometimes...VERY RARELY...should a DM do this, imnsho. I have done it, a handful of times over the decades, and every single time I feel bad or "dirty", like I put a stain on my DM'ing soul.
We were playing 5e from the release of the Starter Box up until last year'ish? I've had multiple TPK's and a lot more PC' deaths. As I said, highest level PC has been a 7th level Goliath Barbarian. After that it's a 5th(?), a couple 4th, and more and more of lower and lower levels. We don't find 5e TOO much more 'safe for PCs' than other editions. A little bit more, yes, with the whole "never go into negative hps" and the flat 50/50 x3 Death Save mechanic...and HD healing. But when bad stuff is happening, and the brown stuff is hitting the fan faster than the PC's can dodge the spray...well...not so much.
Okay, so you rarely make such calls....but you have done so. This is my point. I fully understand your reasoning behind your choice of style. But your choice to play that way plays a part in the possibility of a TPK. Hence, you've had more than me.
I am not saying that's a bad way to play if that's how everyone wants to play, and this is the established style for your group. I've played in plenty of games with that approach, and had plenty of fun with them.
But I don't think your "DM is neutral" view is the same as saying the "DM is not responsible for what happens in play".
